Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 12 (3)

Study of Two Bovine Bone Blocks (Sintered and Non-Sintered) Used for Bone Grafts: Physico-Chemical Characterization and In Vitro Bioactivity and Cellular Analysis

Affiliations

Study of Two Bovine Bone Blocks (Sintered and Non-Sintered) Used for Bone Grafts: Physico-Chemical Characterization and In Vitro Bioactivity and Cellular Analysis

Sergio Alexandre Gehrke et al. Materials (Basel).

Abstract

In this work, the physicochemical properties and in vitro bioactivity and cellular viability of two commercially available bovine bone blocks (allografts materials) with different fabrication processes (sintered and not) used for bone reconstruction were evaluated in order to study the effect of the microstructure in the in vitro behavior. Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectrometry, mechanical resistance of blocks, mercury porosimetry analysis, in vitro bioactivity, and cell viability and proliferation were performed to compare the characteristics of both allograft materials against a synthetic calcium phosphate block used as a negative control. The herein presented results revealed a very dense structure of the low-porosity bovine bone blocks, which conferred the materials' high resistance. Moreover, relatively low gas, fluid intrusion, and cell adhesion were observed in both the tested materials. The structural characteristics and physicochemical properties of both ceramic blocks (sintered and not) were similar. Finally, the bioactivity, biodegradability, and also the viability and proliferation of the cells was directly related to the physicochemical properties of the scaffolds.

Keywords: biomaterials; bone graft; bovine bone; cellular analysis; ceramic blocks.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The mechanical test used in this work: (a) the block dimension after the cut; (b) the Diametric Compression of Block Test (DCBT).
Figure 2
Figure 2
SEM micrographs of the different grafting materials: (A) synthetic TCP used as the control material; (B) bovine bone 1 (sintered material); and (C) bovine bone 2 (material not sintered).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The FTIR spectra of the three tested synthetic materials (TCP, bovine bone 1, and bovine bone 2), plus a collagen matrix.
Figure 4
Figure 4
X-ray diffraction (XRD) of the synthetic TCP, bovine bone 1, and bovine bone 2.
Figure 5
Figure 5
(A) Mercury intrusion curves of the synthetic TCP measured by mercury porosimetry: cumulative intruded volume vs. pore diameter and (B) differential-intruded volume vs. pore diameter.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(A) Mercury intrusion curves of bovine bone 1 and bovine bone 2 measured by mercury porosimetry: cumulative intruded volume vs. pore diameter and (B) differential-intruded volume vs. pore diameter.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Graph of the compressive force values, standard deviation, and median of the measures for each sample block of both the proposed groups.
Figure 8
Figure 8
SEM micrographs of the scaffolds soaked in SBF for 3, 7, and 14 days.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Viability assay of the cells growing in both test materials (bovine bone 1 and 2), TCP, and control plate assessed by the MTT bioassay. The mean values of absorbance at 570 nm are represented. The mean values are expressed as a percentage ± standard deviation.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Barone A., Covani U. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with nonvascularized autogenous block bone: Clinical results. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007;65:2039–2046. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.05.017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mate Sanchez de Val J., Mazon P., Piattelli A., Calvo-Guirado J.L., Mareque Bueno J., Granero Marin J., De Aza P. Comparison among the physical properties of calcium phosphate-based bone substitutes of natual or synthetic origin. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2018;15:930–937. doi: 10.1111/ijac.12860. - DOI
    1. Khan S.N., Cammisa F.P., Jr., Sandhu H.S., Diwan A.D., Girardi F.P., Lane J.M. The biology of bone grafting. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2005;13:77–86. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200501000-00010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Flynn J.M. Fracture Repair and Bone Grafting. OKU 10: Orthopaedic Knowledge Update. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; Rosemont, IL, USA: 2011. pp. 11–21.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Update: Allograft-associated bacterial infections-United States, 2002. MMWR Morb. Mortal Wkly. Rep. 2002;51:207–210. - PubMed
Feedback