Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Particulate, Block and Putty Forms of β-tricalcium Phosphate-Based Synthetic Bone Grafts on Rat Calvarium Model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Bone augmentation is a necessity for atrophied alveolar ridge prior to dental implant placement. Various bone graft types and forms with different characteristics are available in the market for alveolar augmentation. Beta tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) is a synthetic biomaterial known as the oldest type of calcium phosphate. Studies comparing particulate, block or putty grafts are very limited. The aim of this study was to compare the particulate, block and putty forms of the same β-TCP bone graft and analyze the efficiency in critical size calvarium defects.

Material and Methods

Twenty male Wistar-Albino rats were employed for the study. Four bicortical bone defects with 5 mm diameter were created on each rat calvarium, and three defects were filled with particulate, block or putty β-TCP graft and one defect was left empty. The animals were killed after 8 weeks. New bone formation, residual graft, loose connective tissue, condensed mesenchyme, alkaline phosphatase, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, osteocalcin were measured on the specimens.

Results

Compared to block and putty forms, significantly higher new bone formation and least residual graft were observed in the particulate graft group. The residual graft was significantly higher in the block graft group than both the particulate and the putty groups. The cellular immunoreactivity of the samples in the particulate graft group was significantly higher. There was no significant difference between putty and block graft groups.

Conclusion

Bone regeneration is significantly affected by the form of β-TCP bone graft, and the particulate form was the most successful in our study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Additional chart data will be provided by contacting the corresponding author.

References

  1. Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (1998) Consensus report: towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 80:641

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cho YD, Ku Y (2018) Guided bone regeneration using K-incision technique. J Periodontal Implant Sci 48(3):193–200

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Handelsman M (2006) Surgical guidelines for dental implant placement. Br Dent J 201:139–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang HL, Boyapati L (2006) “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent 15(1):8–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yamauchi K, Takahashi T, Funaki K, Hamada Y, Yamashita Y (2010) Histological and histomorphometrical comparative study of β-tricalcium phosphate block grafts and periosteal expansion osteogenesis for alveolar bone augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39(10):1000–1006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Oryan A, Alidadi S, Moshiri A, Maffulli N (2014) Bone regenerative medicine: classic options, novel strategies, and future directions. J Orthop Surg Res 9(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-9-18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Bauer TW, Muschler GF (2000) Bone graft materials. Clin Orthop Related Res 371:10–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chappard D (2017) Beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone surgery: editorial. Morphologie 101(334):111–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Albee FH, Morrison HF (1920) Studies in bone growth, triple calcium phosphate as a stimulus to osteogenesis. Ann Surg 71:32

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Horowitz RA, Mazor Z, Foitzik C, Prasad H, Rohrer M, Palti A (2010) β-tricalcium phosphate as bone substitute material: properties and clinical applications. J Osseointegr 2:61–68

    Google Scholar 

  11. de Grado GF, Keller L, Idoux-Gillet Y et al (2018) Bone substitutes: a review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management. J Tissue Eng 9:2041731418776819

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barbeck M, Dard M, Kokkinopoulou M, Markl J, Booms P, Sader RA, Kirkpatrick CJ, Ghanaati S (2015) Small-sized granules of biphasic bone substitutes support fast implant bed vascularization. Biomatter 5(1):e1056943

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Roden RD Jr (2010) Principles of bone grafting. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 22(3):295–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chazono M, Tanaka T, Komaki H, Fujii K (2004) Bone formation and bioresorption after implantation of injectable beta-tricalcium phosphate granules-hyaluronate complex in rabbit bone defects. J Biomed Mater Res A 70:542–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Favero V, Lang NP, Canullo L, Urbizo Velez J, Bengazi F, Botticelli D (2016) Sinus floor elevation outcomes following perforation of the Schneiderian membrane. An experimental study in sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schmidlin P, Nicholls F, Kruse A, Zwahlen R, Weber F (2013) Evaluation of moldable, in situ hardening calcium phosphate bone graft substitutes. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zijderveld SA, Schulten EA, Aartman IH, ten Bruggenkate CM (2009) Long-term changes in graft height after maxillary sinus floor elevation with different grafting materials: radiographic evaluation with a minimum follow-up of 4.5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:691–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Knabe C, Koch C, Rack A, Stiller M (2008) Effect of beta-tricalcium phosphate particles with varying porosity on osteogenesis after sinus floor augmentation in humans. Biomaterials 29:2249–2258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ghanaati S, Barbeck M, Orth C, Willershausen I, Thimm BW, Hoffmann C, Rasic A, Sader RA, Unger RE, Peters F, Kirkpatrick CJ (2010) Influence of b-tricalcium phosphate granule size and morphology on tissue reaction in vivo. Acta Biomater 6(12):4476–4487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Salamanca E, Hsu CC, Yao WL, Choy CS, Pan YH, Teng N-C, Chang W-J (2020) Porcine collagen-bone composite induced osteoblast differentiation and bone regeneration in vitro and in vivo. Polymers 12(1):93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Xiao G, Cui Y, Ducy P, Karsenty G, Franceschi RT (1997) Ascorbic acid-dependent activation of the osteocalcin promoter in MC3T3-E1 preosteoblasts: requirement for collagen matrix synthesis and the presence of an intact OSE2 sequence. Mol Endocrinol 11(8):1103–1113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wildburger A, Bubalo V, Magyar M, Nagursky H, Jakse N, Schmelzeisen R, Sauerbier S (2017) Sinus floor augmentation comparing an in situ hardening biphasic calcium phosphate (hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate) bone graft substitute with a particulate biphasic calcium phosphate (hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate) bone graft substitute: an experimental study in sheep. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 23:404–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Clark D, Rajendran Y, Paydar S et al (2018) Advanced platelet-rich fibrin and freeze-dried bone allograft for ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol 89(4):379–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.17-0466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Aydinlikevler mah. Cemil Meric Cad. IKCU Dis Hek. Fak. Agiz, Dis Ve Cene Cerrahisi, 35640, Cigli/Izmir, Turkey

    Hüseyin Akçay, Birkan Tatar & Murat Ulu

  2. Izmir, Turkey

    Keremcan Kuru & Nuri Ünal

  3. Department of Histology and Embriyology, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey

    Fatma Şimşek

  4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey

    Ozan Karaman

Authors
  1. Hüseyin Akçay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birkan Tatar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keremcan Kuru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nuri Ünal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatma Şimşek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Murat Ulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ozan Karaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Surgical interventions, material preparation, data collection were performed by HA, BT, KK and NU. Histological analysis was performed by FU. The first draft of the manuscript was written by BT, HA and OK. Data analysis was performed by HA, MU and OK. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birkan Tatar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethical Approval

This study was carried out with the approval of local ethics committee in Ege University Laboratory Animals Application and Research Center (No:2018–046) in accordance with European Directive 2010/63/EU for conducting animal experiments.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akçay, H., Tatar, B., Kuru, K. et al. Comparison of Particulate, Block and Putty Forms of β-tricalcium Phosphate-Based Synthetic Bone Grafts on Rat Calvarium Model. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 22, 296–303 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-022-01735-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-022-01735-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation