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
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.
ff
© 2024 Acta Scientific, All rights reserved.