Particulate Bioglass Compared With Hydroxyapatite as a Bone Graft Substitute

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


Bioactive ceramics, notably hydroxyapatite, have been used clinically in various situations in which bone augmentation and restoration are required. Particulate material has been used either alone or in conjunction with freeze dried or autologous bone, with variable clinical success. In this study a bioactive glass, 45S5 Bioglass, has been compared with hydroxyapatite in an animal model to discover whether the 2 major disadvantages of hydroxyapatite may be overcome. These are the difficulty of placing and retaining the particulate in the defect and the length of time needed before full bony restoration is achieved. Bioglass is shown to be easy to manipulate and hemostatic and allows full restoration of bone in 2 weeks, rather than the 12 weeks needed for the particulate hydroxyapatite to produce a comparable response. The Bioglass particulate is used up in the process, and any problems that may be associated with the production of a composite of bone and biomaterial are avoided in the fully restored bone. In any procedure that requires bony augmentation, this rapid response to Bioglass is expected to provide a clinical advantage.

    loading  Loading Related Articles