In vitro resorbability and granular characteristics of 3D-printed hydroxyapatite granules versus allograft,xenograft,and alloplast for alveolar cleft surgery applications
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2021
In vitro resorbability and granular characteristics of 3D-printed hydroxyapatite granules versus allograft,xenograft,and alloplast for alveolar cleft surgery applications
Three-dimensionally printed hydroxyapatite (3DP HA) was investigated in regards to its functional properties supporting bone regeneration and tooth movement in alveolar cleft applications. Commercially available bovine xenograft (BXG), biphasic calcium phosphate alloplast (BCP), and two types of freeze-dried bone allograft granules (FDBA and FDBA-CMC) were employed as control samples. Degradability was studied by submerging the samples in pH 7.4 buffered solution at 37°C for 28 days and determining subsequent weight loss percentage. The wicking property and granular agglomeration were evaluated by putting the granules in contact with deionized water, blood, and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Both of FDBA and FDBA-CMC showed the greatest weight loss at 28 days followed by 3DP HA. In contrast, 3DP HA showed significantly greater wicking ability than other samples for all liquid types. FDBA-CMC exhibited the greatest granular agglomeration for all liquid types followed by 3DP HA. 3DP HA was found to be a favorable candidate for bone grafting in alveolar cleft treatment.
VyasTGuptaPKumarS, et al. Cleft of lip and palate: a review. J Family Med Prim Care2020; 9(6): 2621–2625.
2.
WeisslerEHPaineKMAhmedMK, et al. Alveolar bone grafting and cleft lip and palate: a review. Plast Reconstr Surg2016; 138(6): 1287–1295.
3.
BrowaeysHBouvryPDe BruynH.A literature review on biomaterials in sinus augmentation procedures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2007; 9(3): 166–177.
4.
LeonettiJAKoupR.Localized maxillary ridge augmentation with a block allograft for dental implant placement: case reports. Implant Dent2003; 12(3): 217–226.
5.
LaneJMSandhuHS.Current approaches to experimental bone grafting. Orthop Clin North Am1987; 18(2): 213–225.
6.
ProloDJRodrigoJJ.Contemporary bone graft physiology and surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res1985; 200: 322–342.
7.
Polo-CorralesLLatorre-EstevesMRamirez-VickJE.Scaffold design for bone regeneration. J Nanosci Nanotechnol2014; 14(1): 15–56.
8.
BoseSRoyMBandyopadhyayA.Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol2012; 30(10): 546–554.
9.
DorozhkinSV.Bioceramics of calcium orthophosphates. Biomaterials2010; 31(7): 1465–1485.
10.
BehniaHKhojastehASoleimaniM, et al. Repair of alveolar cleft defect with mesenchymal stem cells and platelet derived growth factors: a preliminary report. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2012; 40(1): 2–7.
11.
HingKAAnnazBSaeedS, et al. Microporosity enhances bioactivity of synthetic bone graft substitutes. J Mater Sci Mater Med2005; 16(5): 467–475.
12.
SalmiM.Additive manufacturing processes in medical application. Materials (Basel)2021; 14(1): 191.
13.
ZafarMJZhuDZhangZ.3D printing of bioceramics for bone tissue engineering. Materials (Basel)2019; 12(20): 3361.
14.
TrombettaRInzanaJASchwarzEM, et al. 3D printing of calcium phosphate ceramics for bone tissue engineering and drug delivery. Ann Biomed Eng2017; 45(1): 23–44.
15.
BrunelloGSivolellaSMeneghelloR, et al. Powder-based 3D printing for bone tissue engineering. Biotechnol Adv2016; 34(5): 740–753.
16.
SuwanprateebJSuvannaprukWWasoontararatK.Low temperature preparation of calcium phosphate structure via phosphorization of 3D-printed calcium sulfate hemihydrate based material. J Mater Sci Mater Med2010; 21(2): 419–429.
17.
BoskeyAL.Mineralization of bones and teeth. Elements2007; 3(387–393): 387.
18.
DorozhkinSV.Nanosized and nanocrystalline calcium orthophosphates. Acta Biomater2010; 6(3): 715–734.
19.
ThammarakcharoenFPalanuruksaPSuwanprateebJ.In Vitro resorbability of three different processed hydroxyapatite. Key Eng Mater2015; 659: 3–7.
20.
KijartornPThammarakcharoenFSuwanprateebJ, et al. The use of three dimensional printed hydroxyapatite granules in alveolar ridge preservation. Key Eng Mater2017; 751: 663–667.
SheikhZAbdallahMNHanafiAA, et al. Mechanisms of in vivo degradation and resorption of calcium phosphate based biomaterials. Materials (Basel)2015; 8(11): 7913–7925.
23.
DongZLiYZouQ.Degradation and biocompatibility of porous nano-hydroxyapatite/polyurethane composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Appl Surf Sci2009; 255(12): 6087–6091.
24.
ShiuHTGossBLuttonC, et al. Formation of blood clot on biomaterial implants influences bone healing. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2014; 20: 697–712.
25.
ParteliEJRSchmidtJBlϋmelC, et al. Attractive particle interaction forces and packing density of fine glass powders. Sci Rep2014; 4: 6227.
26.
LiQWangTZhangGF, et al. A comparative evaluation of the mechanical properties of two calcium phosphate/collagen composite materials and their osteogenic effects on adipose-derived stem cells. Stem Cells Int2016; 2016: 6409546.
27.
SakaiSAnadaTTsuchiyaK, et al. Comparative study on the resorbability and dissolution behavior of octacalcium phosphate, β-tricalcium phosphate, and hydroxyapatite under physiological conditions. Dent Mater J2016; 35(2): 216–224.
28.
BenlidayiMETatliUKurkcuM, et al. Comparison of bovine-derived hydroxyapatite and autogenous bone for secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with alveolar clefts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2012; 70(1): e95–e102.
29.
TakemaruMSakamotoYSakamotoT, et al. Assessment of bioabsorbable hydroxyapatite for secondary bone grafting in unilateral alveolar cleft. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2016; 69(4): 493–496.
30.
RashidADarSHCheemaJA, et al. Alveolar clefts reconstruction: a comparison of autogenous bone graft versus autogenous combined with alloplasts. Pak Oral Dent J2014; 34(2): 224–229.
31.
HingKAAnnazBSaeedS, et al. Microporosity enhance bioactivity of synthetic bone graft substitute. J Mater Sci Mater Med2005; 16(5): 467–475.
32.
NatherAAYusofNHilmyN. Allograft procurement, processing and transplantation: a comprehensive guide for tissue banks. New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2010.
33.
ZhaoNWangYQinL, et al. Effect of composition and macropore percentage on mechanical and in vitro cell proliferation and differentiation properties of 3D printed HA/β-TCP scaffolds. RSC Adv2017; 7(68): 43186–43196.
34.
KimSAhnTHanM, et al. Wicking property of graft material enhanced bone regeneration in the ovariectomized rat model. Tissue Eng Regen Med2018; 15(4): 503–510.
35.
ThammarakcharoenFYampakdeeABuranawatB, et al. A comparative study of granular agglomeration between 3D printed hydroxyapatite and commercial bone graft granules. Key Eng Mater2019; 798: 83–87.
36.
OhDSKimYJHongM, et al. Effect of capillary action on bone regeneration in micro-channeled ceramic scaffolds. Ceram Int2014; 40(7): 9583–9589.
37.
TrajkovskiBJaunichMMullerW, et al. Hydrophilicity, viscoelastic, and physicochemical properties variations in dental bone grafting substitutes. Materials (Basel)2018; 11(215): 215.
38.
ShiuHTGossBLuttonC, et al. Formation of blood clot on biomaterial implants influences bone healing. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2014; 20: 697–712.
