Paper Titles
Acknowledgment
Symposia
Committees
Preface
Biocompatibility of Bovine Anorganic Xenograft
p.3
Biological Response to Wollastonite Doped α-Tricalcium Phosphate Implants in Hard and Soft Tissues in Rats
p.7
Bone Regeneration at Cortical Bone Defect with Unidirectional Porous Hydroxyapatite In Vivo
p.11
Histomorphometric Analysis of Bone Repair in Critical Size Defect in Rats Calvaria Treated with Hydroxyapatite and Zinc-Containing Hydroxyapatite 5%
p.15
In Vitro and In Vivo Behaviour of a Ceramic with Interconnected Macroporosity
p.19

Biocompatibility of Bovine Anorganic Xenograft

Article Preview

Abstract:

Porous granules without organic residues were produced from bovine medular anorganic bone. Sample showed carbonate content and crystalline order similar to natural bone. The cytotoxicity of anorganic bovine xenograft (Ossĕus®) was valuated from fibroblasts (1.5x104/cm2) cultured in serial diluted extract (0 – 100%) of Ossĕus plus 10% of fetal bovine serum (FBS). Pure extract (100%) reduced in 15% the number of viable cells (p<0.05, ANOVA, Tukey test) indicating very low cytotoxicity. Samples were implanted in the subcutaneous tissue of mice in order to evaluate tissue reaction. An organized connective tissue in contact to the granules was observed nine weeks after implantation. The anorganic bovine xenograft (Ossĕus®) was biocompatible and its behavior and osteoconduction potential should be evaluated in bony defects.

You might also be interested in these eBooks
Bioceramics 21 View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 396-398)

Pages:

3-6

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.396-398.3

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

October 2008

Authors:

C.L. Jardelino, Esther R. Takamori, Silvia R. A. Santos, Antonella M. Rossi, José Mauro Granjeiro

Keywords:

Biocompatibility, Bovine Bone Xenograft, Mice, Subcutaneous Tissue

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

© 2009 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

References

[1] M.E. Aichelmann-Reidy and R.A. Yukna: Dent Clin North Am. Vol. 42 (1998), pp.491-503.

Google Scholar

[2] M. Hürzeler, C. Quiñones and A. Kirsh: Clin Oral Implants ResVol. 8 (1997), pp.476-86.

Google Scholar

[3] W.F. Zambuzzi, R.C. Oliveira, F.L. Pereira, T.M. Cestari, R. Taga and J.M. Granjeiro: Braz Dent J Vol. 17 (2006), pp.274-8.

DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000400002

Google Scholar

[4] M.B. Conz, J.M. Granjeiro and G.A. Soares: J Appl Oral Sci Vol. 13 (2005), pp.136-140.

Google Scholar

[5] A.I. Pearce, R.G. Richards, S. Milz, E. Schneider and S.G. Pearce: Eur Cell Mater Vol. 13 (2007), pp.1-10.

Google Scholar

[6] ISO 10993-5. Biological evaluation of medical devices. Part 5: Tests for cytotoxicity: In vitro methods. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva; (1999).

Google Scholar

[7] R.C. Oliveira, R.M. Silva, T.M. Cestari, M. Buzalaf, E.M. Taga, R. Taga, J. M: Braz Dent J Vol. 15 (2004), pp.3-8.

Google Scholar

[8] S.R. Bannister and C.A. Powell: J Periodontol Vol. 79 (2008), pp.1116-20 Acknowledgements. Special thanks to CBPF, UFF, CNPq, FINEP, FAPERJ and Capes for the financial support.

Google Scholar