Logo-japid
J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. 2024;16(1): 4-8.
doi: 10.34172/japid.2024.012
PMID: 39027212
PMCID: PMC11252153
  Abstract View: 436
  PDF Download: 333

Research Article

Comparative assessment of the physical structure of antler and bovine bone substitutes: An in vitro study

Mohammad Hossein Mahboubian 1,2 ORCID logo, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh 1,2 ORCID logo, Reza Amid 1,2 ORCID logo, Anahita Moscowchi 1,2* ORCID logo

1 Dental Research Center, Research Institute for Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Anahita Moscowchi, Email: a.moscowchi@gmail.com

Abstract

Background. The use of bone graft materials has significantly increased. Given the inherent variations in structure and functionality between different grafting materials, this evaluated and compared the physical attributes of antler and bovine femur bone substitutes.

Methods. In the present in vitro investigation, the surface morphological architecture of the two bone substitutes with different origins was assessed through scanning electron microscopy. Furthermore, the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) technique was employed to measure the porosity, specific surface area (SSA), and pore morphology.

Results. Scanning electron microscopy observations indicated that the surface of the bovine particles appeared smoother, while the antler particles exhibited a rougher surface texture. The BET analysis revealed that both samples exhibited identical pore morphology. The SSA was 15.974 m2 /g in the antler particles compared with 18.404 m2 /g in the bovine sample. The total porosity volume in the antler and bovine femur bone substitutes were 0.2172 cm3 /g and 0.2918 cm3 /g, respectively. Additionally, the antler particles had a porosity percentage of 40%, whereas the bovine femur bone substitute showed a porosity percentage of 43.5%.

Conclusion. Based on the results of this study, it seems that the two samples of bone grafting materials have comparable physical structures.

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 437

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 333

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 14 Dec 2023
Accepted: 13 May 2024
ePublished: 28 May 2024
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)