Investigation of Different Types of Micro- and Nanostructured Materials for Bone Grafting Application

Abstract

The insufficient volume of dental ridges is one of the most severe problems regarding an oral cavity. An inadequate amount can cause problems during various types of dental treatment. Its complexity originates from the etiopathogenesis of this problem. In this study, the representatives of auto-, allo-, and xenografts are compared. The physic-chemical differences between each of them were evaluated using XRD (X-ray Powder Diffraction), a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy), FT-IR (Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy), and TGA (thermogravimetric analysis). Based on the SEM images, it was observed that the origin of the material has an influence on collagen fiber compact level and porosity. Following a comparison of FT-IR spectra and XRD, the crystal and chemical structures were described. Based on TGA, different water concentrations of the investigated materials, their high thermal stability, and concentration of inorganic phase, hydroxyapatite was determined. The presented study is important because it delivers information about chemical structure and its impact on bone regeneration. This knowledge should be taken into consideration by dental clinicians, because different types of bone grafts can accommodate the achievement of various goals.

Advancements in alveolar bone reconstruction: A systematic review of bone block utilization in dental practice

“…The bone surface surrounding these holes is smooth, predominantly consisting of strongly bonded collagen fibers, with microcracks and layered particles across the entire surface. 20 The potential for antigenicity in allografts may not be entirely eliminated, as the formation of alloantibodies can complicate bone transplantation. Nevertheless, the quantification of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules in various allogeneic bone grafting materials for alveolar ridge reconstruction revealed trace amounts of MHC molecules.…”

“…The material displays particle holes and pores, which increases its overall surface area. 20 Xenogeneic bone blocks exhibit lower efficiency than other types of bone blocks. In an experimental model, after a 6-month healing period, the alveolar ridge was integrated into the target area.…”

“…Despite the potential to choose and combine these substitutes for effective reconstructions with minimal morbidity and rapid healing, variations exist among the most commonly used substitutes in terms of their chemical, physical and morphological features. 20 While undoubtedly serving as an excellent scaffold for bone reconstruction, the selection of this reconstructive technique should consider factors such as the choice of biomaterial and other potential aspects to enhance the treatment process and achieve the best possible outcome. 10 This systematic review aimed to investigate recent advances in the use of bone blocks in oral surgery.…”

Design, clinical applications and post-surgical assessment of bioresorbable 3D-printed craniofacial composite implants

“…Four types of bone substitutes exist: autografts, allografts, xenografts and alloplasts. 4,5 Autogenous bone grafts utilise living bone tissue, usually harvested from the patient's rib or hip. 6 Allografts are obtained from cadavers, whereas xenografts originate from genetically nonidentical species.…”