Xenogeneic bone substitute materials are widely used in oral implantology. Prior to their clinical use, purification of the former bone tissue has to be conducted to ensure the removal of immunogenic components and pathogens. Different physicochemical methods are applied for purification of the donor tissue, and temperature treatment is one of these methods. Differences in these methods and especially the application of different temperatures for purification may lead to different material characteristics, which may influence the tissue reactions to these materials and the related (bone) healing process. However, little is known about the different material characteristics and their influences on the healing process. Thus, the aim of this mini-review is to summarize the preparation processes and the related material characteristics, safety aspects, tissue reactions, resorbability and preclinical and clinical data of two widely used xenogeneic bone substitutes that mainly differ in the temperature treatment: sintered (cerabone®) and non-sintered (Bio-Oss®) bovine-bone materials. Based on the summarized data from the literature, a connection between the material-induced tissue reactions and the consequences for the healing processes are presented with the aim of translation into their clinical application.
WeatherholtAMFuchsRKWardenSJ. Specialized connective tissue: bone, the structural framework of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther2012; 25(2): 123–132.
2.
JanickiPSchmidmaierG. What should be the characteristics of the ideal bone graft substitute? Combining scaffolds with growth factors and/or stem cells. Injury2011; 42: S77–S81.
3.
CampanaVMilanoGPaganoEet al. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice. J Mater Sci Mater Med2014; 25(10): 2445–2461.
4.
ChenF-MLiuX. Advancing biomaterials of human origin for tissue engineering. Prog Polym Sci2016; 53: 86–168.
5.
BarbeckMUdeaborSELorenzJet al. Induction of multinucleated giant cells in response to small sized bovine bone substitute (Bio-OssTM) results in an enhanced early implantation bed vascularization. Ann Maxillofac Surg2014; 4(2): 150–157.
6.
GhanaatiSBarbeckMBoomsPet al. Potential lack of ‘standardized’ processing techniques for production of allogeneic and xenogeneic bone blocks for application in humans. Acta Biomater2014; 10(8): 3557–3562.
7.
ChappardDFressonnetCGentyCet al. Fat in bone xenografts: importance of the purification procedures on cleanliness, wettability and biocompatibility. Biomaterials1993; 14(7): 507–512.
8.
BarbeckMUdeaborSLorenzJet al. High-temperature sintering of xenogeneic bone substitutes leads to increased multinucleated giant cell formation: in vivo and preliminary clinical results. J Oral Implantol2015; 41(5): e212–e222.
9.
SheikhZBrooksPJBarzilayOet al. Macrophages, foreign body giant cells and their response to implantable biomaterials. Materials2015; 8(9): 5671–5701.
10.
AndersonJMRodriguezAChangDT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol2008; 20(2): 86–100.
11.
ChenZKleinTMurrayRZet al. Osteoimmunomodulation for the development of advanced bone biomaterials. Mater Today2016; 19(6): 304–321.
12.
BarbeckMBoomsPUngerRet al. Multinucleated giant cells in the implant bed of bone substitutes are foreign body giant cells-new insights into the material-mediated healing process. J Biomed Mater Res A2017; 105(4): 1105–1111.
13.
McNallyAKAndersonJM. Multinucleated giant cell formation exhibits features of phagocytosis with participation of the endoplasmic reticulum. Exp Mol Pathol2005; 79(2): 126–135.
14.
BarbeckMNajmanSStojanovićSet al. Addition of blood to a phycogenic bone substitute leads to increased in vivo vascularization. Biomed Mater2015; 10(5): 055007.
15.
BarbeckMMottaAMigliaresiCet al. Heterogeneity of biomaterial-induced multinucleated giant cells: possible importance for the regeneration process?J Biomed Mater Res A2016; 104(2): 413–418.
16.
AminiARLaurencinCTNukavarapuSP. Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng2012; 40(5): 363–408.
17.
DamienCJParsonsJR. Bone graft and bone graft substitutes: a review of current technology and applications. J Appl Biomater1991; 2(3): 187–208.
18.
MuralithranGRameshS. The effects of sintering temperature on the properties of hydroxyapatite. Ceram Int2000; 26(2): 221–230.
19.
LussiHGeistlichP. Chemical compound. U.S. Patent No. US5417975A. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1989.
20.
RheeSHChungCPParkYJ. Method for preparing a prion-free bond grafting substitute. U.S. Patent No. US8586099B2. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2006.
21.
BerberiASamaraniANaderNet al. Physicochemical characteristics of bone substitutes used in oral surgery in comparison to autogenous bone. Biomed Res Int2014; 2014: 320790.
22.
TadicDEppleM. A thorough physicochemical characterisation of 14 calcium phosphate-based bone substitution materials in comparison to natural bone. Biomaterials2004; 25(6): 987–994.
23.
WeberU. Calciumorthophosphate mit kontrollierter Kristallmorphologie und ein injizierbares, poröses Biomaterial: Materialentwicklung und Charakterisierung. Rostock: University of Rostock, 2013.
24.
BarbeckMDardMKokkinopoulouMet al. Small-sized granules of biphasic bone substitutes support fast implant bed vascularization. Biomatter2015; 5(1): e1056943.
25.
BarbeckMUngerRSchnettlerRet al. Xenogeneic bone grafting materials. Int Mag Oral Implant2017; 3: 34–36.
26.
BuflerMA. Calciumphosphate: synthese, Reaktionen in Wässrigen Median und Charakterisierung von Oberflachen und Grenzflachen. Siegen: University of Siegen, 2004.
27.
Ramirez FernandezMPGehrkeSAPerez Albacete MartinezCet al. SEM-EDX study of the degradation process of two xenograft materials used in sinus lift procedures. Materials2017; 10(5): E542.
HerliansyahMKHamdiMIde-EktessabiAet al. The influence of sintering temperature on the properties of compacted bovine hydroxyapatite. Mater Sci Eng: C2009; 29(5): 1674–1680.
30.
ManfroRFonsecaFSBortoluzziMCet al. Comparative, histological and histomorphometric analysis of three anorganic bovine xenogenous bone substitutes: Bio-Oss, bone-fill and gen-ox anorganic. J Maxillofac Oral Surg2014; 13(4): 464–470.
31.
VanisSRheinbachOKlawonnAet al. Numerical computation of the porosity of bone substitution materials from synchrotron micro computer tomographic data. Materialwiss Werkst2006; 37(6): 469–473.
32.
JensenSSAaboeMPinholtEMet al. Tissue reaction and material characteristics of four bone substitutes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1996; 11(1): 55–66.
33.
WenzBOeschBHorstM. Analysis of the risk of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy through bone grafts derived from bovine bone. Biomaterials2001; 22(12): 1599–1606.
34.
KimYNowzariHRichSK. Risk of prion disease transmission through bovine-derived bone substitutes: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2013; 15(5): 645–653.
35.
WillRGIronsideJWZeidlerMet al. A new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the UK. Lancet1996; 347(9006): 921–925.
36.
EN ISO 22442-1: 2015. EU-guidelines for medical devices utilizing animal tissues their derivatives – part 1: application of risk management.
37.
TaylorDMFraserHMcConnellIet al. Decontamination studies with the agents of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie. Arch Virol1994; 139(3): 313–326.
38.
WalkerASInderliedCBKingsburyDT. Conditions for the chemical and physical inactivation of the K. Fu. strain of the agent of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Am J Public Health1983; 73(6): 661–665.
39.
ShirmohammadiARoshangarLChitsaziMTet al. Comparative study on the efficacy of anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) and nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (ostim) in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int Sch Res Notices2014; 2014: 967091.
40.
RiachiFNaamanNTabaraniCet al. Influence of material properties on rate of resorption of two bone graft materials after sinus lift using radiographic assessment. Int J Dent2012; 2012: 737262.
41.
PanagiotouDÖzkanEDirikan IpciSet al. Comparison of two different xenografts in bilateral sinus augmentation: radiographic and histologic findings. Quintessence Int2015; 46(7): 611–619.
42.
LorenzJKubeschAKorzinskasTet al. TRAP-positive multinucleated giant cells are foreign body giant cells rather than osteoclasts: results from a split-mouth study in humans. J Oral Implantol2015; 41(6): e257–e266.
43.
Al-MaawiSOrlowskaASaderRet al. In vivo cellular reactions to different biomaterials-physiological and pathological aspects and their consequences. Semin Immunol2017; 29: 49–61.
44.
AnnibaliSIezziGSfasciottiGLet al. Histological and histomorphometric human results of HA-beta-TCP 30/70 compared to three different biomaterials in maxillary sinus augmentation at 6 months: a preliminary report. Biomed Res Int2015; 2015: 156850.
45.
GhanaatiSBarbeckMLorenzJet al. Synthetic bone substitute material comparable with xenogeneic material for bone tissue regeneration in oral cancer patients: first and preliminary histological, histomorphometrical and clinical results. Ann Maxillofac Surg2013; 3(2): 126–138.
46.
SchmittCMDoeringHSchmidtTet al. Histological results after maxillary sinus augmentation with Straumann® BoneCeramic, Bio-Oss®, Puros®, and autologous bone. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res2013; 24(5): 576–585.
47.
HuberFXBergerIMcArthurNet al. Evaluation of a novel nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite paste and a solid hydroxyapatite ceramic for the treatment of critical size bone defects (CSD) in rabbits. J Mater Sci Mater Med2008; 19(1): 33–38.
48.
ArtziZWasersprungNWeinrebMet al. Effect of guided tissue regeneration on newly formed bone and cementum in periapical tissue healing after endodontic surgery: an in vivo study in the cat. J Endod2012; 38(2): 163–169.
49.
ShakirMJollyRKhanAAet al. Resol based chitosan/nano-hydroxyapatite nanoensemble for effective bone tissue engineering. Carbohydr Polym2018; 179: 317–327.
50.
RoknARKhodadoostanMAReza Rasouli GhahroudiAAet al. Bone formation with two types of grafting materials: a histologic and histomorphometric study. Open Dent J2011; 5: 96–104.
51.
ParkJ-WJangJ-HBaeS-Ret al. Bone formation with various bone graft substitutes in critical-sized rat calvarial defect. Clin Oral Implants Res2009; 20(4): 372–378.
52.
ParkJWKimESJangJHet al. Healing of rabbit calvarial bone defects using biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics made of submicron-sized grains with a hierarchical pore structure. Clin Oral Implants Res2010; 21(3): 268–276.
53.
ParkJWKoHJJangJHet al. Increased new bone formation with a surface magnesium-incorporated deproteinized porcine bone substitute in rabbit calvarial defects. J Biomed Mater Res A2012; 100(4): 834–840.
54.
MahJHungJWangJet al. The efficacy of various alloplastic bone grafts on the healing of rat calvarial defects. Eur J Orthod2004; 26: 475–482.
55.
OliveiraMRdeC SilvaAFerreiraSet al. Influence of the association between platelet-rich fibrin and bovine bone on bone regeneration. A histomorphometric study in the calvaria of rats. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2015; 44(5): 649–655.
56.
TakautiCAFutemaFBritoRBJret al. Assessment of bone healing in rabbit calvaria grafted with three different biomaterials. Braz Dent J2014; 25(5): 379–384.
57.
ScaranoAPiattelliAPecoraGet al. A histomorphometric comparison of anorganic bovine bone (ABB) and calcium sulfate (CaS) used in sinus augmentation procedures: a study in sheep. J Osseoint2010(2): 38–44.
58.
FroumSSWallaceSElianNet al. Comparison of mineralized cancellous bone allograft (Puros) and anorganic bovine bone matrix (Bio-Oss) for sinus augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2007; 26: 543–551.
59.
FroumSSWallaceSChoS-Cet al. Histomorphometric comparison of a biphasic bone ceramic to anorganic bovine bone for sinus augmentation: 6 to 8 month postsurgical assessment 3f vital bone formation. A pilot study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2008; 28: 273–281.
60.
Galindo-MorenoPAvilaGFernandez-BarberoJEet al. Clinical and histologic comparison of two different composite grafts for sinus augmentation: a pilot clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res2008; 19(8): 755–759.
61.
FienitzTMosesOKlemmCet al. Histological and radiological evaluation of sintered and non-sintered deproteinized bovine bone substitute materials in sinus augmentation procedures. A prospective, randomized-controlled, clinical multicenter study. Clin Oral Investig2017; 21(3): 787–794.
62.
RogosnitzkyMBranchS. Gadolinium-based contrast agent toxicity: a review of known and proposed mechanisms. Biometals2016; 29(3): 365–376.
63.
LorenzJBarbeckMSaderRAet al. Foreign body giant cell-related encapsulation of a synthetic material three years after augmentation. J Oral Implantol2016; 42(3): 273–277.
64.
YangY-QTanY-YWongRet al. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor in ossification. Int J Oral Sci2012; 4(2): 64–68.
65.
MichalskiMNKohAJWeidnerSet al. Modulation of osteoblastic cell efferocytosis by bone marrow macrophages. J Cell Biochem2016; 117(12): 2697–2706.
66.
BarbeckMLorenzJKubeschAet al. Porcine dermis-derived collagen membranes induce implantation bed vascularization via multinucleated giant cells: a physiological reaction?J Oral Implantol2015; 41(6): e238–e251.
67.
ValentiniPAbensurDDensariDet al. Complication rate with prosthodontic reconstructions on ITI and IMZ dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res1998; 9(1): 59–64.
68.
SchlegelKDonathK. BIO-OSS – a resorbable bone substitute?J Long Term Eff Med Implants1998; 8: 201–209.
69.
StavropoulosAKostopoulosLMardasNet al. Deproteinized bovine bone used as an adjunct to guided bone augmentation: an experimental study in the rat. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2001; 3(3): 156–165.
70.
MildeRRitterJTennent GlenysAet al. Multinucleated giant cells are specialized for complement-mediated phagocytosis and large target destruction. Cell1937; 1: 39–48.
71.
GhanaatiSBarbeckMDetschRet al. The chemical composition of synthetic bone substitutes influences tissue reactions in vivo: histological and histomorphometrical analysis of the cellular inflammatory response to hydroxyapatite, beta-tricalcium phosphate and biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics. Biomed Mater2012; 7(1): 015005.
72.
AbbasA. Is Bio-Oss® an osteoconductive material when used as an onlay graft in combination with a resorbable membrane? A prospective experiment in a rabbit model. Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2011.
73.
DudaMPajakJ. The issue of bioresorption of the Bio-Oss xenogeneic bone substitute in bone defects. Ann Univ Mariae Curie Sklodowska Med2004; 59: 269–277.
74.
ZitzmannNSchärerPMarinelloCet al. Alveolar ridge augmentation with Bio-Oss: a histologic study in humans. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2001; 21: 288–295.
75.
KlingeBAlberiusPIsakssonSet al. Osseous response to implanted natural bone mineral and synthetic hydroxylapatite ceramic in the repair of experimental skull bone defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1992; 50(3): 241–249.
76.
SartoriSSilvestriMForniFet al. Ten-year follow-up in a maxillary sinus augmentation using anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss). A case report with histomorphometric evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res2003; 14: 369–372.
77.
SmithMMDuncanWJCoatesDE. Attributes of Bio-Oss® and Moa-Bone® graft materials in a pilot study using the sheep maxillary sinus model. J Periodontal Res2018; 53: 80–90.
