Novel Innovations in Bone Graft Substitutes for Periodontal Regeneration: A Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-22
Author(s):  
C. K. Sreelakshmi Bharadwaj ◽  
Rashmi Paramashivaiah ◽  
M. L. V. Prabhuji
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Periodontal Regeneration ◽  
Bone Graft Substitutes

scholarly journals 3D-Printed Scaffolds and Biomaterials: Review of Alveolar Bone Augmentation and Periodontal Regeneration Applications

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farah Asa’ad ◽  
Giorgio Pagni ◽  
Sophia P. Pilipchuk ◽  
Aldo Bruno Giannì ◽  
William V. Giannobile ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Periodontal Regeneration ◽  
Oral Diseases ◽  
3D Scaffold ◽  
Socket Preservation ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Implant Therapy ◽  
Bone Graft Substitutes ◽  
Grafting Materials

To ensure a successful dental implant therapy, the presence of adequate vertical and horizontal alveolar bone is fundamental. However, an insufficient amount of alveolar ridge in both dimensions is often encountered in dental practice due to the consequences of oral diseases and tooth loss. Although postextraction socket preservation has been adopted to lessen the need for such invasive approaches, it utilizes bone grafting materials, which have limitations that could negatively affect the quality of bone formation. To overcome the drawbacks of routinely employed grafting materials, bone graft substitutes such as 3D scaffolds have been recently investigated in the dental field. In this review, we highlight different biomaterials suitable for 3D scaffold fabrication, with a focus on “3D-printed” ones as bone graft substitutes that might be convenient for various applications related to implant therapy. We also briefly discuss their possible adoption for periodontal regeneration.

scholarly journals Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zorica Buser ◽  
Darrel S. Brodke ◽  
Jim A. Youssef ◽  
Hans-Joerg Meisel ◽  
Sue Lynn Myhre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Synthetic Bone ◽  
Synthetic Bone Graft ◽  
Bone Graft Substitutes

The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of synthetic bone graft substitutes versus autograft or allograft for the treatment of lumbar and cervical spinal degenerative diseases. Multiple major medical reference databases were searched for studies that evaluated spinal fusion using synthetic bone graft substitutes (either alone or with an autograft or allograft) compared with autograft and allograft. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with more than 10 patients were included. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. The search yielded 214 citations with 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. For the patients with lumbar spinal degenerative disease, data from 19 comparative studies were included: 3 RCTs, 12 prospective, and 4 retrospective studies. Hydroxyapatite (HA), HA+collagen, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), calcium sulfate, or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) were used. Overall, there were no differences between the treatment groups in terms of fusion, functional outcomes, or complications, except in 1 study that found higher rates of HA graft absorption. For the patients with cervical degenerative conditions, data from 8 comparative studies were included: 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies (1 prospective and 3 retrospective studies). Synthetic grafts included HA, β-TCP/HA, PMMA, and biocompatible osteoconductive polymer (BOP). The PMMA and BOP grafts led to lower fusion rates, and PMMA, HA, and BOP had greater risks of graft fragmentation, settling, and instrumentation problems compared with iliac crest bone graft. The overall quality of evidence evaluating the potential use and superiority of the synthetic biological materials for lumbar and cervical fusion in this systematic review was low or insufficient, largely due to the high potential for bias and small sample sizes. Thus, definitive conclusions or recommendations regarding the use of these synthetic materials should be made cautiously and within the context of the limitations of the evidence.

A Novelty of Synthetic Hydroxyapatite from Cockle Shell and Characterization

2015 ◽  
Vol 1087 ◽  
pp. 429-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rusnah Mustaffa ◽  
Mohd Reusmaazran Mohd Yusof ◽  
Yusof Abdullah
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Bone Repair ◽  
Artificial Bone ◽  
Synthetic Bone ◽  
Potential Source ◽  
Mineral Constituent ◽  
Bone Graft Substitutes ◽  
Synthetic Hydroxyapatite ◽  
Anadara Granosa ◽  
Cockle Shell

In Malaysia recently, it was found that cockle shell (Anadara granosa) is a potential source of biomaterial for bone repair. It is the most abundant sea species cultured in Malaysia. A possible advantage of using cockle shell as a biomaterial is that they may act as an antilog of calcium carbonate. Malaysian Nuclear Agency took this challenge to develop synthetic bone graft from natural cockle shell. To date, the artificial bone graft substitutes developed from hydroxyapatite (Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2) a bio ceramic is similar to the mineral constituent of human bone. The structure and the composition of hydroxyapatite (HA) are similar to the mineral phase of bone and, its bioactivity and biocompatibility makes it a preferred bone graft.

A Review of Bone Graft Substitutes Made From HA-Polymer Composite Scaffolds and Fabrication Potential With Laser-Based Additive Manufacturing Processes

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hera Wu ◽  
Shuting Lei
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Bone Graft Substitute ◽  
Biological Properties ◽  
Porous Scaffolds ◽  
Composite Scaffolds ◽  
Bone Graft Substitutes ◽  
Manufacturing Technologies ◽  
High Level

Hydroxyapatite, a bioactive ceramic, has been combined with biodegradable polymers to create composite three-dimensional interconnected porous scaffolds for bone graft substitutes. The materials and fabrication methods of these composite scaffolds are reviewed. The resulting mechanical and biological properties of scaffolds produced from the combination of certain materials and fabrication methods are analyzed. Requirements for a bone graft substitute and third generation scaffolds with the addition of osteoinductive and osteogenic features to composite scaffolds including biomolecule delivery and cell seeding are also introduced. Finally, the benefits of using additive manufacturing technologies to enable high level of control over the design of interconnected pore structure are discussed.

Advances in Bone Graft Substitutes in Spinal Fusion

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Tzermiadianos ◽  
Alexander Hadjipavlou ◽  
John Gaitanis
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Bone Graft Substitutes
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document