Advertisement

Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 113–120 | Cite as

Comparative Study of hydroxyapatite prepared from seashells and eggshells as a bone graft material

  • Sang-Woon Lee
  • Csaba Balázsi
  • Katalin Balázsi
  • Dong-hyun Seo
  • Han Sung Kim
  • Chang-Hyen Kim
  • Seong-Gon KimEmail author
Original Article Biomaterials

Abstract

The aims of this study were to determine the physical properties of hydroxyapatite from seashells (sHA) and from eggshells (eHA), to analyze elements within sHA and eHA, and to compare the bone regeneration ability between sHA and eHA in a rat parietal bone defect model. The sHA and eHA particles had a similar morphology in scanning electron microscope images. From the Fourier-transform infrared absorbance spectra and X-ray diffraction results, both types of hydroxyapatite (HA) had the characteristics of pure HA. Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy results suggested that the sHA had higher levels of sodium and strontium than the eHA, whereas the eHA had higher levels of magnesium than the sHA. In μ-CT results, the mean bone mineral density of the sHA was significantly higher than the control at 4 weeks after the operation (p = 0.012). The mean bone volume of the eHA was significantly higher than the control at 8 weeks after the operation (p = 0.012). In the histological images at 4 weeks after the operation, foreign body multinucleated giant cells were observed around the agglomerated sHA particles, while there were fewer inflammatory reactions around the agglomerated eHA particles. The eHA group showed better results in bone formation than did the sHA group in this study.

Key words

seashell eggshell hydroxyapatite bone graft bone regeneration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    SS Wallace, SJ Froum, Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review, Ann Periodontol, 8, 328 (2003).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    BE Pjetursson, WC Tan, M Zwahlen, et al., A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation, J Clin Periodontol, 35, 216 (2008).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    JM Ten Heggeler, DE Slot, GA Van der Weijden, Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review, Clin Oral Implants Res, 22, 779 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D Schwartz-Arad, L Levin, Intraoral autogenous block onlay bone grafting for extensive reconstruction of atrophic maxillary alveolar ridges, J Periodontol, 76, 636 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CM Misch, Use of the mandibular ramus as a donor site for onlay bone grafting, J Oral Implantol, 26, 42 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D Schwartz-Arad, L Levin, L Sigal, Surgical success of intraoral autogenous block onlay bone grafting for alveolar ridge augmentation, Implant Dent, 14, 131 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CM Misch, Maxillary autogenous bone grafting, Dent Clin North Am, 55, 697 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    FM Silva, AL Cortez, RW Moreira, et al., Complications of intraoral donor site for bone grafting prior to implant placement, Implant Dent, 15, 420 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    LL Hench. Bioceramics: From concept to clinic, J Am Ceram Soc, 74, 1487 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DL Hoexter. Bone regeneration graft materials, J Oral Implantol, 28, 290 (2002).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N Baldini, M De Sanctis, M Ferrari. Deproteinized bovine bone in periodontal and implant surgery, Dent Mater, 27, 61 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MA Reynolds, ME Aichelmann-Reidy, GL Branch-Mays, et al., The efficacy of bone replacement grafts in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. A systematic review, Ann Periodontol, 8, 227 (2003).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    SJ Froum, SS Wallace, N Elian, et al., Comparison of mineralized cancellous bone allograft (Puros) and anorganic bovine bone matrix (Bio-Oss) for sinus augmentation: histomorphometry at 26 to 32 weeks after grafting, Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 26, 543 (2006).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DA Cottrell, LM Wolford, Long-term evaluation of the use of coralline hydroxyapatite in orthognathic surgery, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 56, 935 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MP Bostrom, DA Seigerman, The clinical use of allografts, demineralized bone matrices, synthetic bone graft substitutes and osteoinductive growth factors: a survey study, HSS J, 1, 9 (2005).PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y Kim, H Nowzari, SK Rich, Risk of prion disease transmission through bovine-derived bone substitutes: A systematic review, Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 15, 645 (2013).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C Balázsi, F Wéber, Z Kövér, et al., Preparation of calcium-phosphate bioceramics from natural resources, J Eur Ceram Soc, 27, 1601 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G Gergely, F Wéber, I Lukács, et al., Nano-hydroxyapatite preparation from biogenic raw materials, Cent Eur J Chem, 8, 375 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SW Lee, SG Kim, C Balázsi, et al., Comparative study of hydroxyapatite from eggshells and synthetic hydroxyapatite for bone regeneration, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 113, 348 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    E Damien, PA Revell, Coralline hydroxyapatite bone graft substitute: A review of experimental studies and biomedical applications, J Appl Biomater Biomech, 2, 65 (2004).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    JW Park, JH Jang, SR Bae, et al., Bone formation with various bone graft substitutes in critical-sized rat calvarial defect, Clin Oral Implants Res, 20, 372 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    JW Park, SR Bae, JY Suh, et al., Evaluation of bone healing with eggshell-derived bone graft substitutes in rat calvaria: a pilot study, J Biomed Mater Res A, 87, 203 (2008).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L Dupoirieux, D Pourquier, M Neves, et al., Resorption kinetics of eggshell: an in vivo study, J Craniofac Surg, 12, 53 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    L Dupoirieux, D Pourquier, F Souyris, Powdered eggshell: a pilot study on a new bone substitute for use in maxillofacial surgery, J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 23, 187 (1995).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L Dupoirieux, Ostrich eggshell as a bone substitute: a preliminary report of its biological behaviour in animals—a possibility in facial reconstructive surgery, Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 37, 467 (1999).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    S Uygur, S Ozmen, S Kandal, et al., Reconstruction of cranial bone defects using Struthiocamelus eggshell, J Craniofac Surg, 22, 1843 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    E Durmu, I Celik, MF Aydin, et al., Evaluation of the biocompatibility and osteoproductive activity of ostrich eggshell powder in experimentally induced calvarial defects in rabbits, J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 86, 82 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    KS Vecchio, X Zhang, JB Massie, et al., Conversion of bulk seashells to biocompatible hydroxyapatite for bone implants, Acta Biomater, 3, 910 (2007).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    B Venugopal, T Luckey, Metal Toxicity in Mammals. New York, Plenum, (1978).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    F Witte, H Ulrich, M Rudert, et al., Biodegradable magnesium scaffolds: Part I: Appropriate inflammatory response, J Biomed Mater Res, 81A, 748 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O Gauthier, JM Bouler, P Weiss, et al., Short-term effects of mineral particle sizes on cellular degradation activity after implantation of injectable calcium phosphate biomaterials and the consequences for bone substitution, Bone, 25, 71S (1999).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    A Creedon, A Flynn, K Cashman, The effect of moderately and severely restricted dietary magnesium intakes on bone composition and bone metabolism in the rat, Br J Nutr, 82, 63 (1999).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Y Toba, Y Kajita, R Masuyama, et al., Dietary magnesium supplementation affects bone metabolism and dynamic strength of bone in ovariectomized rats, J Nutr, 130, 216 (2000).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    R Crespi, P Capparè, A Addis, et al., Injectable magnesiumenriched hydroxyapatite putty in peri-implant defects: a histomorphometric analysis in pigs, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 27, 95 (2012).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    F Wu, J Su, J Wei, et al., Injectable bioactive calciummagnesium phosphate cement for bone regeneration, Biomed Mater, 3, 044105 (2008).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    J Jia, H Zhou, J Wei, et al., Development of magnesium calcium phosphate biocement for bone regeneration, J R Soc Interface, 7, 1171 (2010).PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    M Lalk, J Reifenrath, N Angrisani, et al., Fluoride and calciumphosphate coated sponges of the magnesium alloy AX30 as bone grafts: a comparative study in rabbits, J Mater Sci Mater Med, 24, 417 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    D Zeng, L Xia, W Zhang, et al., Maxillary sinus floor elevation using a tissue-engineered bone with calcium-magnesium phosphate cement and bone marrow stromal cells in rabbits, Tissue Eng Part A, 18, 870 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Society and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sang-Woon Lee
    • 1
  • Csaba Balázsi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Katalin Balázsi
    • 3
  • Dong-hyun Seo
    • 4
  • Han Sung Kim
    • 4
  • Chang-Hyen Kim
    • 5
  • Seong-Gon Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of DentistryGangneung-Wonju National UniversityGangneungRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Institute for Materials Science and TechnologyBay Zoltán Nonprofit Ltd. for Applied ResearchBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Institute for Technical Physics and Materials Science, Research Centre for Natural SciencesHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical Engineering, Institute of Medical Engineering and Yonsei-Fraunhofer Medical Device LaboratoryYonsei UniversityWonjuRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations