Acta Scientific Dental Sciences (ASDS)(ISSN: 2581-4893)

Research Article Volume 7 Issue 8

Response of Commercially Available Bone Substitutes When in Contact with Blood - A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

Nikesh N Moolya1*, Swati B Setty2, Nilima Rajhans3, Neelima Daule1, Asawari Lawande2 and Yogita Landge4

1Professor, Department of Periodontics, Yashwantrao Chavan Memorial Medical and Rural Development Foundation Dental College, India
2Professor, Department of Periodontics, SDM College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Dharwad, Karnataka, India
3Dean, Professor and Head, Department of Periodontics, Yashwantrao Chavan Memorial Medical and Rural Development Foundation Dental College, Ahmednagar, India
4Post-Graduate Student, Department of Periodontics, Yashwantrao Chavan Memorial Medical and Rural Development Foundation Dental College, India

*Corresponding Author: Nikesh N Moolya, Professor, Department of Periodontics, Yashwantrao Chavan Memorial Medical and Rural Development Foundation Dental College, India.

Received: June 24, 2023; Published: July 13, 2023


Introduction: The success of bone grafts relies on a complex sequence of events with a major dependence on vascular ingrowth, differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells, bone remodeling and graft resorption occurring together with host bone ingrowth into the porous coralline microstructure or voids left behind during resorption Clearly, an ideal bone graft substitute should resorb fully and at a predictable rate but also provide a three-dimensional matrix to support bone ingrowth and on growth during resorption. The rationale behind more rapid resorption of alloplasts is related, in part, to new bone formation and decreases the load-sharing environment. The ultimate replacement with the body’s own tissue while the implant resorbs needs to be titrated with the rate of new bone ingrowth diagnostic purpose so that regenerative or new bone formation can be assessed radiographically. The degradation of the implant also allows for additional space.

Methods: Nine alloplasts namely Osteogen® (Impladent, USA), Osseomold® (Advanced Biotech, Chennai, India) Pepgen P-15® (Dentsply, USA), Biogran® (Bioactive glass), BioResorb® (Oraltronics, USA), Ortograf-Ld® (HA and Beta TCP), Periobone G® (Calcium HA porous granules), ProRoot® (Dentsply, USA) were selected for the study. The samples were sputter-coated with gold in an ion coater, the morphology was observed and particle size was measured under vacuum by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SEM analysis provided visual evidence that all examined materials have irregular shape and particle sizes larger than those informed by the manufacturer. EDS microanalysis detected the presence of sodium, calcium and phosphorus that are usual elements of the bone tissue. However, mineral elements were detected in all analyzed particles of organic bovine bone except for macro cancellous organic bovine bone. These results suggest that the examined organic bovine bone cannot be considered as a pure organic material.

Keywords:Scanning Electron Microscopy; X-Ray Microanalysis; Bone Substitute; Bovine Bone; Human Bone; Hydroxyapatite


  1. Hisham FN., et al. “Bone and Bone Substitutes”. Periodontology 2000 19 (1999): 74-85.
  2. Shetty V and Han TJ. “Alloplastic materials in reconstructive periodontal surgery”. Dental Clinics of North America 3 (1991): 521-530.
  3. RE Baier. “Selected methods of investigation for blood-contact surfaces”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1 (1987): 68-77.
  4. Spijker HT., et al. “Adhesion of blood platelets under flow to wettability gradient polyethylene surfaces made in a shielded gas plasma”. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 13 (2002): 1703-1713.
  5. Robinson RE. “Osseous coagulum for bone induction”. Journal of Periodontology 40 (1969): 503.
  6. Rivault AF., et al. “Autogenous bone grafts: osseous coagulum and osseous retrograde procedures in primates”. Journal of Periodontology 42 (1971): 787.
  7. Jonck LM. “Bone induction effect of fine bone shavings in polyester fibre”. South African Medical Journal 49 (1975): 697.
  8. Shapoff CA., et al. “The effect of particle size on the osteogenic activity of composite grafts of allogenic freeze dried bone and autogenous marrow”. Journal of Periodontology 51 (1980): 625.
  9. Klawitter JJ and Hulbert SF. “Application of porous ceramics for the attachment of load bearing internal orthopedic applications”. Biomedical Materials Research 17 (1983): 769-784.
  10. Karin A Hing. “Bioceramic Bone Graft Substitutes: Influence of Porosity and Chemistry”. International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology3 (2005): 184-188.
  11. De Groot K. “Bioceramics consisting of calcium phosphate salts”. Biomat 1 (1980): 47.
  12. Jarcho M. “Calcium phosphate ceramics as hard tissue prosthetics”. Clinical Orthopaedics 157 (1981): 259.
  13. Bhaskar SN., et al. “Biodegradable ceramic implants in bone”. Oral Surgery 32 (1971): 336.
  14. DE Bhaskar., et al. “Reaction of bone to tricalcium phosphate ceramic pellets”. Oral Surgery 33 (1972): 850.
  15. Katthagen BD and Mittelmeier H. “Experimental animal investigation of bone regeneration with collagen-apatite”. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 103 (1984): 291-302.
  16. Hashimoto M., et al. “Clinical and Histologic observation of replacement of biphasic calcium phosphate by bone tissue in monkeys”. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 15 (1995): 204-213.
  17. Zaner DJ and Yukna RA. “Particle size of periodontal bone grafting materials”. Journal of Periodontology7 (1984): 406-409.
  18. Mazratian AM., et al. “Evaluation of interparticulate space among bone replacement graft materials. New Orleans, Louisiana: American Association of Dental Research. New Orleans Section (1997).
  19. Pederson KN., et al. “Tissue into mandibular intrabony porous ceramic implants”. International Journal of Surgery 3 (1974): 158.
  20. Nathanson D., et al. “Histologic response to porous PMMA implants”. Biomedical Materials Science 12 (1978): 13.
  21. Bobyn JD., et al. “Effect of pore size on the peel strength of attachment of fibrous tissue to porous surface implants”. Biomedical Materials Research 1 (1971): 49.


Citation: Nikesh N Moolya., et al. “Response of Commercially Available Bone Substitutes When in Contact with Blood - A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 7.8 (2023): 24-28.


Copyright: © 2023 Nikesh N Moolya., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.278

Indexed In

News and Events

  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is April 30th, 2024.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of "Best Article of the Issue"
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.

Contact US