Physicochemical Characterization of Five Different Bone Graft Substitutes Used in Periodontal Regeneration: An In Vitro Study

Aiswarya Anil; Arun Sadasivan; Elizabeth Koshi

doi:10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_263_20

Physicochemical Characterization of Five Different Bone Graft Substitutes Used in Periodontal Regeneration: An In Vitro Study

J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020 Sep 28;10(5):634-642. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_263_20. eCollection 2020 Sep-Oct.

Authors

Aiswarya Anil¹, Arun Sadasivan², Elizabeth Koshi³

Affiliations

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.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Alloplasts; bone graft substitutes; characterization; physicochemical; xenografts.