Blood absorption capacity of different xenograft bone substitutes. An in-vitro study

Octavi Ortiz-Puigpelat; Andreia Simões; Jordi Caballé-Serrano; Federico Hernández-Alfaro

doi:10.4317/jced.56317

Blood absorption capacity of different xenograft bone substitutes. An in-vitro study

J Clin Exp Dent. 2019 Nov 1;11(11):e1018-e1024. doi: 10.4317/jced.56317. eCollection 2019 Nov.

Authors

Octavi Ortiz-Puigpelat¹, Andreia Simões², Jordi Caballé-Serrano³, Federico Hernández-Alfaro⁴

Affiliations

¹ Assistant Professor Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Universitat Internacional de Catalunya. Director of Clínica Dental Ortiz-Puigpelat. Barcelona, Spain.
² DDS, MS. Resident Student of Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Universitat Internacional de Catalunya.
³ DDS, MS, PhD. Assistant Professor Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Universitat Internacional de Catalunya.
⁴ MD, DDS, PhD, FEBOMS. Professor & Chairman Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. Universitat Internacional de Catalunya. Director InstitutoMaxilofacial. Teknon Medical Center.

Abstract

Background: Commercially available xenograft blocks, claim to have adequate characteristics to interact with biological media and thus permitting biological fluid absorption. The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the blood absorption capacity of four different xenograft block materials of different composition of collagen and porosity.

Material and methods: Four brands of xenograft block materials were used (NuOss®, Bio-Oss®, Osteobiol® and Smartbone®). Five samples of each brand were analyzed, making a total of 20 tests. Human blood was used as the absorption liquid for the present experiment. The time period, in which the block remains in contact with the blood, was registered at 30 seconds (T1), 60 seconds (T2) and 5 minutes (T3). The xenograft blocks were evaluated according to their absorption capacity.

Results: The absorption capacity of the different biomaterials were statistical significant different (p<0,001) at T1, T2 and T3 time points. At 30 seconds, Smartbone® absorbed significantly less blood than NuOss® and Bio-Oss®, however, without differences comparing with Osteobiol®. The NuOss®, Bio-Oss® and Osteobiol® did not register any significant difference between them. At 60 seconds, the Smartbone® absorbed significantly less blood than the other biomaterials.

Conclusions: The NuOss® was significantly superior than Osteobiol®, but without differences relatively with Bio-Oss®. Also the Bio-Oss® and Osteobiol® did not register any difference between them. At 5 minutes, the Smatbone® continued to significantly absorbed less blood than any other biomaterial, nevertheless, NuOss®, Bio-Oss® and Osteobiol® not register again any significant difference between them. Despite of small sample size, it can be concluded that NuOss® was superior, in terms of blood absorption capacity, comparing with the other block biomaterials at 30 seconds, 60 seconds and 5 minutes. However, more investigation in a clinical setting are needed to know the clinical implications of the absorption capacity of such biomaterials. Key words:Blood absorption, osteoconduction, xenograft, bone regeneration.