3$1$0(5,&$1+($/7+&$5((;&+$1*(63$+&(&21)(5(1&(:25.6+236$1'(;+,%,76&223(5$7,21/,1.

$*(6
,17(5&$0%,26'(&8,'$'20e',&23$1$0(5,&$126&21)(5(1&,$7$//(5(6<(;+,%,&,21(6&223(5$&,1(1/$&(6

Properties of Biocompatible Materials for use in

Maxillary Bone Regeneration: A Review
M. Meja1, N. Zapata1, P. Villegas2
1
Biomedical Engineering Student, Instituto Tecnolgico Metropolitano, Medelln, Colombia
2
Biomedical Innovation and Research Group, Instituto Tecnolgico Metropolitano, Medelln, Colombia

In this project, it was compared the main mechanical and physicochemical properties of biomaterials currently used in
maxillary bone regeneration. The literature review was done selecting 50 scientific papers and the materials were classified in
autogenous bone, allograft, xenograft, alloplastic, and compound materials. The biomaterials were cataloged according to
mechanical strength properties, charging time, reabsorption, and adhesion (priority for their use in maxillary bone regeneration).
Also, it were evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of each material. The study allowed to identify relevant factors to
ensuring better mechanical strength, load time, reabsorption, and adhesion.

Keywords Biomaterials, biomechanical properties, maxillary bone regeneration.

In dentistry area are various problems associated with loss of tooth structure due to different causes such as trauma,
periodontal disease, dental caries, and osteoporosis [1]. These problems are usually treated with autologous grafts for their
high mechanical strength and high osteogenesis. However, they present the disadvantage of requiring two surgical areas
which increases the morbidity [2]. New solutions to these problems have carried to the synthetic materials creation as:
alloplastic and compounds that have high biocompatibility [3][4][5]; xenograft materials obtained by other species with high
mechanical resistance but related with immunogenicity [2]; and allografts from homologous donor with the disease
transmission possibility [4]. In this work, the commonly materials used for maxillary bone regeneration are presented. They
are classified according to their origin and are compared according to their properties in order to determine their advantages
and disadvantages in this particular application.

Development: First, it was developed a theoretical framework to discuss the terms of oral cavity and its disease
(periodontitis, caries, and tooth decay), maxillofacial bones and their abnormalities (cysts, tumors, trauma, and metabolic and
congenital disorders), and finally the bone healing mechanisms (osteogenesis, osteoinduction, and osteoconduction). Later,
papers were classified according to material type and maxillary bone defect. Materials were classified in five categories.
Autologous or autogenous grafts are considered the most important for their osteoinductive, osteoconductive, and osteogenic
capacities, but they require two surgery areas increasing the morbidity. Homologous grafts, allogeneic, or allografts which
have good osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties but little osteogenic property. Their thermal process removes
immunogenic activity, but also reduces the osteogenic cells. Heterologous graft or xenograft retain bone mineral content and
eliminate organic components. They also provide a natural architectural matrix and they are excellent calcium source.
Alloplastic grafts are synthetic bone substitutes used for repairing bone defects because they encourage bone tissue growth.
Their nature and variable properties (porosity, geometry, solubility, and density) offer a high rate of the implant reabsorption.
Some of them are propitious to bacterial colonization and low osteoinductive effect. Compound synthetic materials are
presented in a wide range of component combinations to enhance bone regeneration. However, the search for a suitable
compound that may supplant the autogenous bone continues. Each material was described according to their properties of
mechanical strength, adhesion, load time, and reabsorption. Also, their advantages and disadvantages were established.
Additionally, relevant factors were identified at the time of ensuring better mechanical strength, load time, reabsorption, and
adhesion.

REFERENCES
[1] H. Kenneth, Krames Online - Fundamentos sobre la salud de los dientes y las encas. [Online]. Available:
http://www.montefiore.kramesonline.com/3,S,89776.
[2] E. Velasco Ortega, J. Segura Egea, O. Prez Prez, R. Medel Soteras, and J. Pato Mourelo, La utilizacin del betafosfato triclcico como biomaterial en
implantologa oral, Avances en periodoncia e implantologa oral, vol. 19, no. 3. Ediciones Avances, pp. 141149, 2007.
[3] C. do Nascimento, J. P. M. Issa, R. R. de Oliveira, M. M. Iyomasa, S. Sissere, and S. C. H. Regalo, Biomaterials Applied to the Bone Healing
Process, International Journal of Morphology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 839846, Dec. 2007.
[4] A. Kolk, J. Handschel, W. Drescher, D. Rothamel, F. Kloss, M. Blessmann, M. Heiland, K.-D. Wolff, and R. Smeets, Current trends and future
perspectives of bone substitute materials - From space holders to innovative biomaterials., Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery: official
publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 70618, Jan. 2012.
[5] C. Finlay, Metodologa de empleo de la hidroxiapatita coralina HAP-200 en Ortopedia y Traumatologa. [Online]. Available:
http://www.bvs.sld.cu/revistas/ort/vol19_1_05/ort07105.htm.

$35,/0$<0('(//,1&2/20%,$
  ,6%1
,((( ,(((&DWDORJ1XPEHU&)3*&'5