Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 177    
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 634-642

Physicochemical characterization of five different bone graft substitutes used in periodontal regeneration: an in vitro study


1 Resident, Department of Periodontics, Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kulasekharam, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Professor, Department of Periodontics, Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kulasekharam, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Professor & Head, Department of Periodontics, Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kulasekharam, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Arun Sadasivan
Diya, KMLRA 131, Mosque Lane, Kumarapuram, Medical College PO, Trivandrum, Kerala.
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_263_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: Periodontal regeneration involves using a variety of bone graft substitutes (BGS) of varying origin and manufacturing processes. These include a wide range of biomaterials that are mainly of two types: the xenografts and alloplasts. The efficacy of these BGS depends upon the physical characteristics such as particle size, porous nature, surface morphology, as well as the chemical characteristics like composition, crystallinity and resorption properties. Aims: The present study is a descriptive study that focuses on describing the physicochemical characteristics of five selected commercially available BGS that are frequently used in periodontal regeneration procedures. The BGS studied here included two xenografts (colocast and osseograft) and three alloplasts (B-OstIN, biograft HABG active and biograft HT). Materials and Methods: The physical properties of the BGS, including particle size, morphology, and surface topography, were analyzed using SEM. The mineral phases and crystallinity of the BGS were analyzed using XRD. Results: The results showed that the xenografts (colocast and osseograft) had minimal mineral composition and crystalline structure. The physical properties such as surface roughness and porosity were less compared to alloplastic materials. The alloplasts (B-OstIN, biograft HABG and biograft HT) that had different chemical compositions showed varying physical and crystalline properties. Biograft HT showed a superior porous scaffold architecture among all BGS studied. Conclusion: It is important for a clinician to have a thorough understanding about the physicochemical characteristics of BGS they use in periodontal regeneration. The xenografts evaluated here had minimal physical and crystalline properties. Among the alloplasts studied, biograft HT showed superior physicochemical properties, while the presence of bioactive glass in biograft HABG enhanced regeneration.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed80    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded9    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal