Clinical Performance of Moldable Bioceramics for Bone Regeneration in Maxillofacial Surgery


Article Preview

There are numerous clinical indications for bone grafts. The ideal graft material should favor bone apposition and growth while simultaneously being degraded by body fluids and cells. Ultimately, the material should be replaced by mature bone tissue within a healing period of weeks. Because autologous and allogenic bone grafts fulfill some of these requirements, these biological materials are routinely used by clinicians. However, biological materials have intrinsic limitations. Harvesting autologous bone requires a second surgical site, which can cause complications, the material is limited in quantity, and it may lead to immunogenic rejection or transfer certain pathogens and viruses [1-3]. For these reasons, researchers and clinicians have developed synthetic bone substitutes. Our approach has focused on composite biomaterials that combine bioceramics with hydrogels to replace and regenerate bone tissue in osseous defects.





D. Guy et al., "Clinical Performance of Moldable Bioceramics for Bone Regeneration in Maxillofacial Surgery", Journal of Biomimetics, Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 25, pp. 69-72, 2015

Online since:

October 2015




* - Corresponding Author

[1] Silber J.S., et al., Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine, 2003. 28(2): 134-139.


[2] Tomford, W.W., Bone allografts: past, present and future. Cell Tiss Banking, 2000. 1: 105-109.

[3] Heary R.F., et al., Persistent iliac crest donor site pain: independent outcome assessment. Neurosurgery, 2002. 50(3): 510-517.


[4] Daculsi G., et al., Current state of the art of biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, 2003. 14(3): 195-200.

[5] Daculsi G., et al., Formation of carbonate-apatite crystals after implantation of calcium phosphate ceramics. Calcified tissue international, 1990. 46(1): 20-27.


[6] Daculs, G., Biphasic calcium phosphate Granules concept for Injectable and Mouldable Bone SuBstitute. Advances in Science and Technology, 2006. 49: 9-13.


[7] Gauthier O., et al., In vivo comparison of two injectable calcium phosphate biomaterials: ionic cement and polymer-associated particulate ceramic. KEM 2001. 192-95: 801-804.


[8] Albee F, Studies in bonegrowth: TCP as a stimulus to osteogenesis. Ann Surg 1920. 71: 32-36.

[9] Weiss P., et al., The safety and efficacy of an injectable bone substitute in dental sockets demonstrated in a human clinical trial. Biomaterials, 2007. 28(22): 3295-3305.


[10] Fabre T., et al., Pilot study of safety and performance of a mixture of calcium phosphate granules combined with cellulosic derived gel after tunnel filling created during surgical treatment of femoral head aseptic osteonecrosis. KEM, 2008. 361-363: 1295-1298.