https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC8910217\/#B63-ijms-23-02539<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/h4>\nMarija \u010candrli\u0107, Matej Tomas, Matej Karl, Lucija Male\u0161i\u0107, Aleksandar V\u010dev, \u017deljka Peri\u0107 Ka\u010darevi\u0107 and Marko Matijevi\u0107<\/span><\/h4>\nOriginal title:<\/strong> Comparison of Injectable Biphasic Calcium Phosphate and a Bovine Xenograft in Socket Preservation: Qualitative and Quantitative Histologic Study in Humans. Int J Mol Sci.<\/span> 2022 Mar; 23(5): 2539.<\/h4>\n<\/div>Summary<\/h2><\/div><\/div>\nThis study is the first histologic evaluation of maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject (an injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (IBCP)) compared to cerabone\u00ae\u00a0(a bovine xenograft (BX)) in humans six months after socket preservation according to the principles of guided bone regeneration.
\nAfter tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge of 21 patients was augmented with maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject in the test group, while 20 patients in the control group received cerabone\u00ae.<\/p>\n
Six months after augmentation, the authors found the following results:<\/p>\n
\n- Qualitative histologic analysis showed complete integration of the biomaterial and no inflammatory tissue reaction, indicating the biocompatibility of the bone grafts and the surrounding tissue in both groups.<\/li>\n
- Histomorphometric analysis showed comparable results in terms of newly formed bone and residual biomaterial, with no significant difference found across groups.<\/li>\n
- Statistical significance between groups was found in the result of soft tissue percentage<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To conclude, maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject and cerabone\u00ae showed good osteoconductivity and biocompatibility with comparable new bone formation six months after alveolar ridge preservation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>The demand for Synthetic (alloplastic) bone grafting materials<\/span><\/h4>\nEven though the risk of disease transmission from bovine bone grafts is neglectable, some people reject the use of xenografts, also because of ethical and religious reasons.
\nAn alternative are alloplastic biomaterials, that are developed based on the understanding of the nanostructure of bone and the organic-inorganic interactions of the bone matrix. The ultimate goal is to achieve the ultrastructure and morphology of natural biominerals.
\nAlloplastic grafts for dental purposes are usually based on hydroxyapatite (HA), beta-tricalcium phosphate (\u03b2-TCP) and alpha-tricalcium phosphate (\u03b1-TCP) and combinations thereof. Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) is formed by the fusion of HA and \u03b2-TCP in various ratios, such as 60:40 in maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject.<\/p>\n
Aim of the Study<\/span><\/h2>\nSince no randomization clinical trial to date has evaluated the use of IBCP, the aim of the presented randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of the above-mentioned IBCP and a BX in alveolar ridge preservation using qualitative and quantitative histologic analysis.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Surgical Procedure<\/h2>\n
After extraction, the surgeon performed curettage of the alveolus to remove granulation tissue.
\nIn both groups (see flow charts of the randomization process in Figure 1), the graft material was gently pressed into the socket and covered with a resorbable membrane made of porcine collagen (collprotect\u00ae\u00a0membrane, botiss biomaterials, Zossen, Germany) (Figure 2\u00a0and\u00a0Figure 3).
\nAfter six months, bone biopsy was taken from the central part of the preexisting defect using a 2.5 mm trephine drill and implants were placed using a standardized implant set.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/ijms-23-02539-g001.jpeg\" "\\"ijms-23-02539-g001.jpeg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.1 <\/strong>Flow charts of the randomization process
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig1-320x202.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig1.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig2-320x202.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig2.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig3-320x202.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig3.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig4-320x202.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig4.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.2<\/strong> Surgical Procedure of the application of maxresorb\u00ae inject (test group)<\/p>\n<\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig5-320x202.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig5.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig6-320x202.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig6.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig7-320x202.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig7.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig8-320x202.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig8.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.3 <\/strong>Surgical Procedure of the application of cerabone\u00ae (control group)<\/p>\n<\/div>Results<\/span><\/h2>\nClinical Observations<\/span><\/h4>\n\n- The IBCP was easy to handle and insert into the extraction socket.<\/li>\n
- The healing phase was uneventful.<\/li>\n
- No membrane exposure was noted during early postoperative checks.<\/li>\n
- On the 90th postoperative day, wound healing was observed as complete closure of the oral mucosa at the extraction site in all participants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Qualitative Histologic Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\nNew Bone (NB):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- \u00a0Successful bone growth from the apical to the coronal segment of both groups.<\/li>\n
- NB and non-mineralized tissue surrounding the residual biomaterials.<\/li>\n
- Bone growth began in both groups at the boundaries where the biomaterial and pristine bone were in direct contact.<\/li>\n
- Regular lamellar structure with osteocytes enclosed within.<\/li>\n
- Osteoblasts were detected at the contact between biomaterial and NB.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Safety:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- No detection of foreign body reaction.<\/li>\n
- No inflammatory tissue reaction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Quantitative Histologic Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\n\n- Comparable results in terms of the percentage of NB and residual BM in both groups<\/li>\n
- No significant difference was observed between the test and control groups in the percentage of NB and residual BM<\/li>\n
- Socket preservation with maxresorb\u00ae inject resulted in an average percentage of 26.47 \u00b1 14.71% of NB and 13.1 \u00b1 14.07% of residual BM (representable specimen of biopsy with maxresorb\u00ae inject in Figure 4)<\/li>\n
- Socket preservation with cerabone\u00ae resulted in an average percentage of 30.47 \u00b1 16.39% and 17.89 \u00b1 11.81% (representable specimen of biopsy with maxresorb\u00ae inject in Figure 5)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>
Original title:<\/strong> Comparison of Injectable Biphasic Calcium Phosphate and a Bovine Xenograft in Socket Preservation: Qualitative and Quantitative Histologic Study in Humans. Int J Mol Sci.<\/span> 2022 Mar; 23(5): 2539.<\/h4>\n<\/div>Summary<\/h2><\/div><\/div>\nThis study is the first histologic evaluation of maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject (an injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (IBCP)) compared to cerabone\u00ae\u00a0(a bovine xenograft (BX)) in humans six months after socket preservation according to the principles of guided bone regeneration.
\nAfter tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge of 21 patients was augmented with maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject in the test group, while 20 patients in the control group received cerabone\u00ae.<\/p>\n
Six months after augmentation, the authors found the following results:<\/p>\n
\n- Qualitative histologic analysis showed complete integration of the biomaterial and no inflammatory tissue reaction, indicating the biocompatibility of the bone grafts and the surrounding tissue in both groups.<\/li>\n
- Histomorphometric analysis showed comparable results in terms of newly formed bone and residual biomaterial, with no significant difference found across groups.<\/li>\n
- Statistical significance between groups was found in the result of soft tissue percentage<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To conclude, maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject and cerabone\u00ae showed good osteoconductivity and biocompatibility with comparable new bone formation six months after alveolar ridge preservation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>The demand for Synthetic (alloplastic) bone grafting materials<\/span><\/h4>\nEven though the risk of disease transmission from bovine bone grafts is neglectable, some people reject the use of xenografts, also because of ethical and religious reasons.
\nAn alternative are alloplastic biomaterials, that are developed based on the understanding of the nanostructure of bone and the organic-inorganic interactions of the bone matrix. The ultimate goal is to achieve the ultrastructure and morphology of natural biominerals.
\nAlloplastic grafts for dental purposes are usually based on hydroxyapatite (HA), beta-tricalcium phosphate (\u03b2-TCP) and alpha-tricalcium phosphate (\u03b1-TCP) and combinations thereof. Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) is formed by the fusion of HA and \u03b2-TCP in various ratios, such as 60:40 in maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject.<\/p>\n
Aim of the Study<\/span><\/h2>\nSince no randomization clinical trial to date has evaluated the use of IBCP, the aim of the presented randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of the above-mentioned IBCP and a BX in alveolar ridge preservation using qualitative and quantitative histologic analysis.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Surgical Procedure<\/h2>\n
After extraction, the surgeon performed curettage of the alveolus to remove granulation tissue.
\nIn both groups (see flow charts of the randomization process in Figure 1), the graft material was gently pressed into the socket and covered with a resorbable membrane made of porcine collagen (collprotect\u00ae\u00a0membrane, botiss biomaterials, Zossen, Germany) (Figure 2\u00a0and\u00a0Figure 3).
\nAfter six months, bone biopsy was taken from the central part of the preexisting defect using a 2.5 mm trephine drill and implants were placed using a standardized implant set.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.1 <\/strong>Flow charts of the randomization process
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.2<\/strong> Surgical Procedure of the application of maxresorb\u00ae inject (test group)<\/p>\n<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.3 <\/strong>Surgical Procedure of the application of cerabone\u00ae (control group)<\/p>\n<\/div>Results<\/span><\/h2>\nClinical Observations<\/span><\/h4>\n\n- The IBCP was easy to handle and insert into the extraction socket.<\/li>\n
- The healing phase was uneventful.<\/li>\n
- No membrane exposure was noted during early postoperative checks.<\/li>\n
- On the 90th postoperative day, wound healing was observed as complete closure of the oral mucosa at the extraction site in all participants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Qualitative Histologic Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\nNew Bone (NB):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- \u00a0Successful bone growth from the apical to the coronal segment of both groups.<\/li>\n
- NB and non-mineralized tissue surrounding the residual biomaterials.<\/li>\n
- Bone growth began in both groups at the boundaries where the biomaterial and pristine bone were in direct contact.<\/li>\n
- Regular lamellar structure with osteocytes enclosed within.<\/li>\n
- Osteoblasts were detected at the contact between biomaterial and NB.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Safety:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- No detection of foreign body reaction.<\/li>\n
- No inflammatory tissue reaction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Quantitative Histologic Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\n\n- Comparable results in terms of the percentage of NB and residual BM in both groups<\/li>\n
- No significant difference was observed between the test and control groups in the percentage of NB and residual BM<\/li>\n
- Socket preservation with maxresorb\u00ae inject resulted in an average percentage of 26.47 \u00b1 14.71% of NB and 13.1 \u00b1 14.07% of residual BM (representable specimen of biopsy with maxresorb\u00ae inject in Figure 4)<\/li>\n
- Socket preservation with cerabone\u00ae resulted in an average percentage of 30.47 \u00b1 16.39% and 17.89 \u00b1 11.81% (representable specimen of biopsy with maxresorb\u00ae inject in Figure 5)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>
Summary<\/h2><\/div><\/div>\nThis study is the first histologic evaluation of maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject (an injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (IBCP)) compared to cerabone\u00ae\u00a0(a bovine xenograft (BX)) in humans six months after socket preservation according to the principles of guided bone regeneration.
\nAfter tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge of 21 patients was augmented with maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject in the test group, while 20 patients in the control group received cerabone\u00ae.<\/p>\n
Six months after augmentation, the authors found the following results:<\/p>\n
\n- Qualitative histologic analysis showed complete integration of the biomaterial and no inflammatory tissue reaction, indicating the biocompatibility of the bone grafts and the surrounding tissue in both groups.<\/li>\n
- Histomorphometric analysis showed comparable results in terms of newly formed bone and residual biomaterial, with no significant difference found across groups.<\/li>\n
- Statistical significance between groups was found in the result of soft tissue percentage<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To conclude, maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject and cerabone\u00ae showed good osteoconductivity and biocompatibility with comparable new bone formation six months after alveolar ridge preservation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>The demand for Synthetic (alloplastic) bone grafting materials<\/span><\/h4>\nEven though the risk of disease transmission from bovine bone grafts is neglectable, some people reject the use of xenografts, also because of ethical and religious reasons.
\nAn alternative are alloplastic biomaterials, that are developed based on the understanding of the nanostructure of bone and the organic-inorganic interactions of the bone matrix. The ultimate goal is to achieve the ultrastructure and morphology of natural biominerals.
\nAlloplastic grafts for dental purposes are usually based on hydroxyapatite (HA), beta-tricalcium phosphate (\u03b2-TCP) and alpha-tricalcium phosphate (\u03b1-TCP) and combinations thereof. Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) is formed by the fusion of HA and \u03b2-TCP in various ratios, such as 60:40 in maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject.<\/p>\n
Aim of the Study<\/span><\/h2>\nSince no randomization clinical trial to date has evaluated the use of IBCP, the aim of the presented randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of the above-mentioned IBCP and a BX in alveolar ridge preservation using qualitative and quantitative histologic analysis.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Surgical Procedure<\/h2>\n
After extraction, the surgeon performed curettage of the alveolus to remove granulation tissue.
\nIn both groups (see flow charts of the randomization process in Figure 1), the graft material was gently pressed into the socket and covered with a resorbable membrane made of porcine collagen (collprotect\u00ae\u00a0membrane, botiss biomaterials, Zossen, Germany) (Figure 2\u00a0and\u00a0Figure 3).
\nAfter six months, bone biopsy was taken from the central part of the preexisting defect using a 2.5 mm trephine drill and implants were placed using a standardized implant set.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.1 <\/strong>Flow charts of the randomization process
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.2<\/strong> Surgical Procedure of the application of maxresorb\u00ae inject (test group)<\/p>\n<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.3 <\/strong>Surgical Procedure of the application of cerabone\u00ae (control group)<\/p>\n<\/div>Results<\/span><\/h2>\nClinical Observations<\/span><\/h4>\n\n- The IBCP was easy to handle and insert into the extraction socket.<\/li>\n
- The healing phase was uneventful.<\/li>\n
- No membrane exposure was noted during early postoperative checks.<\/li>\n
- On the 90th postoperative day, wound healing was observed as complete closure of the oral mucosa at the extraction site in all participants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Qualitative Histologic Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\nNew Bone (NB):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- \u00a0Successful bone growth from the apical to the coronal segment of both groups.<\/li>\n
- NB and non-mineralized tissue surrounding the residual biomaterials.<\/li>\n
- Bone growth began in both groups at the boundaries where the biomaterial and pristine bone were in direct contact.<\/li>\n
- Regular lamellar structure with osteocytes enclosed within.<\/li>\n
- Osteoblasts were detected at the contact between biomaterial and NB.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Safety:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- No detection of foreign body reaction.<\/li>\n
- No inflammatory tissue reaction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Quantitative Histologic Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\n\n- Comparable results in terms of the percentage of NB and residual BM in both groups<\/li>\n
- No significant difference was observed between the test and control groups in the percentage of NB and residual BM<\/li>\n
- Socket preservation with maxresorb\u00ae inject resulted in an average percentage of 26.47 \u00b1 14.71% of NB and 13.1 \u00b1 14.07% of residual BM (representable specimen of biopsy with maxresorb\u00ae inject in Figure 4)<\/li>\n
- Socket preservation with cerabone\u00ae resulted in an average percentage of 30.47 \u00b1 16.39% and 17.89 \u00b1 11.81% (representable specimen of biopsy with maxresorb\u00ae inject in Figure 5)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>
This study is the first histologic evaluation of maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject (an injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (IBCP)) compared to cerabone\u00ae\u00a0(a bovine xenograft (BX)) in humans six months after socket preservation according to the principles of guided bone regeneration.
\nAfter tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge of 21 patients was augmented with maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject in the test group, while 20 patients in the control group received cerabone\u00ae.<\/p>\n
Six months after augmentation, the authors found the following results:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Qualitative histologic analysis showed complete integration of the biomaterial and no inflammatory tissue reaction, indicating the biocompatibility of the bone grafts and the surrounding tissue in both groups.<\/li>\n
- Histomorphometric analysis showed comparable results in terms of newly formed bone and residual biomaterial, with no significant difference found across groups.<\/li>\n
- Statistical significance between groups was found in the result of soft tissue percentage<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To conclude, maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject and cerabone\u00ae showed good osteoconductivity and biocompatibility with comparable new bone formation six months after alveolar ridge preservation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>The demand for Synthetic (alloplastic) bone grafting materials<\/span><\/h4>\n
Even though the risk of disease transmission from bovine bone grafts is neglectable, some people reject the use of xenografts, also because of ethical and religious reasons.
\nAn alternative are alloplastic biomaterials, that are developed based on the understanding of the nanostructure of bone and the organic-inorganic interactions of the bone matrix. The ultimate goal is to achieve the ultrastructure and morphology of natural biominerals.
\nAlloplastic grafts for dental purposes are usually based on hydroxyapatite (HA), beta-tricalcium phosphate (\u03b2-TCP) and alpha-tricalcium phosphate (\u03b1-TCP) and combinations thereof. Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) is formed by the fusion of HA and \u03b2-TCP in various ratios, such as 60:40 in maxresorb\u00ae\u00a0inject.<\/p>\nAim of the Study<\/span><\/h2>\n
Since no randomization clinical trial to date has evaluated the use of IBCP, the aim of the presented randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of the above-mentioned IBCP and a BX in alveolar ridge preservation using qualitative and quantitative histologic analysis.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Surgical Procedure<\/h2>\n
After extraction, the surgeon performed curettage of the alveolus to remove granulation tissue.
\nIn both groups (see flow charts of the randomization process in Figure 1), the graft material was gently pressed into the socket and covered with a resorbable membrane made of porcine collagen (collprotect\u00ae\u00a0membrane, botiss biomaterials, Zossen, Germany) (Figure 2\u00a0and\u00a0Figure 3).
\nAfter six months, bone biopsy was taken from the central part of the preexisting defect using a 2.5 mm trephine drill and implants were placed using a standardized implant set.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.1 <\/strong>Flow charts of the randomization process
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.2<\/strong> Surgical Procedure of the application of maxresorb\u00ae inject (test group)<\/p>\n<\/div>
<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Fig.3 <\/strong>Surgical Procedure of the application of cerabone\u00ae (control group)<\/p>\n<\/div>
Results<\/span><\/h2>\n
Clinical Observations<\/span><\/h4>\n
- \n
- The IBCP was easy to handle and insert into the extraction socket.<\/li>\n
- The healing phase was uneventful.<\/li>\n
- No membrane exposure was noted during early postoperative checks.<\/li>\n
- On the 90th postoperative day, wound healing was observed as complete closure of the oral mucosa at the extraction site in all participants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Qualitative Histologic Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\n
New Bone (NB):<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- \u00a0Successful bone growth from the apical to the coronal segment of both groups.<\/li>\n
- NB and non-mineralized tissue surrounding the residual biomaterials.<\/li>\n
- Bone growth began in both groups at the boundaries where the biomaterial and pristine bone were in direct contact.<\/li>\n
- Regular lamellar structure with osteocytes enclosed within.<\/li>\n
- Osteoblasts were detected at the contact between biomaterial and NB.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Safety:<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- No detection of foreign body reaction.<\/li>\n
- No inflammatory tissue reaction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Quantitative Histologic Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\n
- \n
- Comparable results in terms of the percentage of NB and residual BM in both groups<\/li>\n
- No significant difference was observed between the test and control groups in the percentage of NB and residual BM<\/li>\n
- Socket preservation with maxresorb\u00ae inject resulted in an average percentage of 26.47 \u00b1 14.71% of NB and 13.1 \u00b1 14.07% of residual BM (representable specimen of biopsy with maxresorb\u00ae inject in Figure 4)<\/li>\n
- Socket preservation with cerabone\u00ae resulted in an average percentage of 30.47 \u00b1 16.39% and 17.89 \u00b1 11.81% (representable specimen of biopsy with maxresorb\u00ae inject in Figure 5)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig9.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig9.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig10.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig10.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig11.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig11.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/botiss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/xenograft_summary_fig12.jpg\" "\\"xenograft_summary_fig12.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>