Comparative study of impact of animal source on physical, structural, and biological properties of bone xenograft

Abstract

Background: Due to the unique features of xenografts including large supply from donors, minimal risk of human disease transmission, and the lower cost of preparation and production compared to autografts and allografts, they are considered as attractive alternatives to traditional bone grafts. The animal source accessibility and production process have a direct correlation with the cost and quality of the final product. To evaluate whether the animal source of the bone has any effect on the physicochemical and histological properties of the final xenograft, three deproteinized bone grafts were prepared from sources that are easily available in Iran, including the bovine (DBB), camel (DCB), and ostrich (DOB). Methods: In the current study, three bone substitute materials intended to serve as bone xenografts were derived from the cow, camel, and ostrich using the thermochemical processing procedure. The physicochemical properties, in vitro cytocompatibility and in vivo bone regeneration capability of the prepared deproteinized bone grafts, were assessed and compared with OCS-B as an approved product in the global market. Results: The physical tests confirmed the hydroxyapatite nature of the final products. SEM and BET analysis showed morphological and structural differences between the products due to differences in the animal sources. In vitro studies showed the prepared deproteinized bone was free of processing chemicals and was biocompatible with mouse fibroblast and myoblast cell lines. In vivo studies revealed that the bone formation capability of the DBB, DCB, and DOB has no significant difference with one another and with OCS-B despite their structural differences. The DCB showed the highest graft residue after two month. No signs of immunogenicity were observed in the study groups compared to the blank group. Conclusion: DBB, DCB, and DOB may offer a favorable cell response and bone regeneration similar to those of commercial bovine bone material.

Freeze Casting with Bioceramics for Bone Graft Substitutes

“…However, these materials require sterilization to prevent potential disease transmission, which can reduce the effectiveness of the material in terms of mechanical strength and osteoinduction [47]. Similarly, xenografts obtained from porcine [48], bovine [49], coral [50], and other [51] nonhuman sources also require sterilization to prevent potential interspecies disease transmission like bovine spongiform encephalopathy or porcine endogenous retroviruses.…”

Xenotransplantation literature update, November/December 2020

“…Seldom thought of as a xenograft by the xenotransplant community but with more than 2.2 million procedures performed per year using bone grafting, these materials are implanted into bone defects to not only replace the missing bone but also to help with bone regeneration and gap healing 36 . It is a necessary clinical commodity that has not been evaluated but the significant need for bone substitute material justifies an evaluation of newer, easier accessible, and safe to utilize substitutes such as xenograft bone grafts reviewed in the paper by Dehghan et al 37 …”

“…In the study by Dehghan et al, 37 they evaluated whether three readily available animal sources of the bone had any effect on the physicochemical and histological properties of the final xenograft. The three deproteinized bone grafts evaluated were prepared from sources that were easily available in Iran, including bovine (DBB), camel (DCB), and ostrich (DOB).…”

Ursolic Acid Loaded-Mesoporous Hydroxylapatite/ Chitosan Therapeutic Scaffolds Regulate Bone Regeneration Ability by Promoting the M2-Type Polarization of Macrophages

“…5,6 Scientists and trauma surgeons seek many ways to solve these problems, such as xenografts, allografts and autografts. [7][8][9] Good postoperative outcomes are achieved with these procedures. However, donor-site morbidity for autografts and immunogenicity for xenografts and allografts can limit their application.…”