Sterility and Bioactivity Evaluation of Two Types of Bone Graft Substitutes After Removing the Original Packaging

Overview

Journal J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Aug 30

PMID 37645549

Authors

Mehdi Ekhlasmand Kermani

Aida Kheiri

Reza Amid

Maryam Torshabi

Behzad Houshmand

Sepideh Parsayan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Xenograft and allograft bone substitutes are widely used to replace the missing bone in defects. Since removing the packaging of these grafts can nullify their sterilization, this study aimed to evaluate the sterility and bioactivity changes of an allograft and a xenograft following uncapping/recap.

Methods: Two types of commercial allograft and xenograft vials were unpacked and further exposed to operating room air, where implant surgery was performed for one second, ten minutes, and one hour. After three repetitions, samples were analyzed using microbiological tests and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy dispersive x-ray analysis (EDX) for sterility and bioactivity evaluation.

Results: None of the bone graft samples showed microbial growth or bioactivity-negative changes after seven days of unpacking the vials.

Conclusion: Despite the positive results of this study, future studies and more analysis considering influential factors are required. Also, disinfection and air exchange must still be observed during biomaterial application and bone grafting procedures.

Citing Articles

Investigating the Promising P28 Peptide-Loaded Chitosan/Ceramic Bone Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration.

Zhou K, Simonassi-Paiva B, Fehrenbach G, Yan G, Portela A, Pogue R Molecules. 2024; 29(17).

PMID: 39275056 PMC: 11396924. DOI: 10.3390/molecules29174208.

References

Jung Y, Kim W, Lee S, Ju K, Jang E, Kim S . Evaluation of New Octacalcium Phosphate-Coated Xenograft in Rats Calvarial Defect Model on Bone Regeneration. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(19). PMC: 7579475. DOI: 10.3390/ma13194391. View

Singh R, Singh D . Sterilization of bone allografts by microwave and gamma radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012; 88(9):661-6. DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2012.700166. View

Rogowska-Tylman J, Locs J, Salma I, Wozniak B, Pilmane M, Zalite V . In vivo and in vitro study of a novel nanohydroxyapatite sonocoated scaffolds for enhanced bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019; 99:669-684. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.084. View

Di Raimondo R, Sanz-Esporrin J, Pla R, Sanz-Martin I, Luengo F, Vignoletti F . Alveolar crest contour changes after guided bone regeneration using different biomaterials: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 24(7):2351-2361. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03092-8. View

Wang W, Yeung K . Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review. Bioact Mater. 2018; 2(4):224-247. PMC: 5935655. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007. View

Kun-Szabo F, Gheorghita D, Ajtai T, Hodovany S, Bozoki Z, Braunitzer G . Aerosol generation and control in the dental operatory: An in vitro spectrometric study of typical clinical setups. PLoS One. 2021; 16(2):e0246543. PMC: 7861533. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246543. View

Lindgren C, Hallman M, Sennerby L, Sammons R . Back-scattered electron imaging and elemental analysis of retrieved bone tissue following sinus augmentation with deproteinized bovine bone or biphasic calcium phosphate. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21(9):924-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01933.x. View

Long B, Dan L, Jian L, Yunyu H, Shu H, Zhi Y . Evaluation of a novel reconstituted bone xenograft using processed bovine cancellous bone in combination with purified bovine bone morphogenetic protein. Xenotransplantation. 2012; 19(2):122-32. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3089.2012.00694.x. View

Ramirez-Fernandez M, Calvo-Guirado J, Mate-Sanchez del Val J, Delgado-Ruiz R, Negri B, Barona-Dorado C . Ultrastructural study by backscattered electron imaging and elemental microanalysis of bone-to-biomaterial interface and mineral degradation of porcine xenografts used in maxillary sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24(5):523-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02414.x. View

10.

Russell N, Oliver R, Walsh W . The effect of sterilization methods on the osteoconductivity of allograft bone in a critical-sized bilateral tibial defect model in rabbits. Biomaterials. 2013; 34(33):8185-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.022. View

11.

Fan Y, Lu J, Xu A, He F . Physiochemical characterization and biological effect of anorganic bovine bone matrix and organic-containing bovine bone matrix in comparison with Bio-Oss in rabbits. J Biomater Appl. 2018; 33(4):566-575. DOI: 10.1177/0885328218804926. View

12.

Clauss M, Trampuz A, Borens O, Bohner M, Ilchmann T . Biofilm formation on bone grafts and bone graft substitutes: comparison of different materials by a standard in vitro test and microcalorimetry. Acta Biomater. 2010; 6(9):3791-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.03.011. View

13.

Bohner M, Lemaitre J . Can bioactivity be tested in vitro with SBF solution?. Biomaterials. 2009; 30(12):2175-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.008. View

14.

Jeong J, Kim J, Shim J, Hwang N, Heo C . Bioactive calcium phosphate materials and applications in bone regeneration. Biomater Res. 2019; 23:4. PMC: 6332599. DOI: 10.1186/s40824-018-0149-3. View

15.

Zang S, Zhu L, Luo K, Mu R, Chen F, Wei X . Chitosan composite scaffold combined with bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells for bone regeneration: and evaluation. Oncotarget. 2018; 8(67):110890-110903. PMC: 5762292. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.22917. View

16.

Amid R, Kheiri A, Kheiri L, Kadkhodazadeh M, Ekhlasmandkermani M . Structural and chemical features of xenograft bone substitutes: A systematic review of in vitro studies. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2020; 68(6):1432-1452. DOI: 10.1002/bab.2065. View

17.

Lee J, Yi G, Lee J, Kim D . Physicochemical characterization of porcine bone-derived grafting material and comparison with bovine xenografts for dental applications. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2018; 47(6):388-401. PMC: 5764765. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.6.388. View

18.

Fu Shaw L, Chen I, Chen C, Wu H, Lai L, Chen Y . Factors influencing microbial colonies in the air of operating rooms. BMC Infect Dis. 2018; 18(1):4. PMC: 5749012. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2928-1. View

19.

Kao S, Scott D . A review of bone substitutes. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2007; 19(4):513-21, vi. DOI: 10.1016/j.coms.2007.06.002. View