Comparative evaluation of the osteoinductivity of two formulations of human demineralized bone matrix

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In the United States, demineralized bone matrix (DBM) is considered a transplantable tissue and therefore is regulated primarily by the American Association of Tissue Banks. Even though DBM is not subjected to the same regulations relative to performance claims as medical devices are, one would expect different processing methods might yield DBM preparations of different osteoinductive potential. The purpose of this study was to use an established athymic rat model to compare the osteoinductive properties of two commercially available human DBMs prepared using different methods but having essentially identical product claims. Sixteen female athymic rats were used to test equivalent volumes of two lots each of Grafton Putty® (Osteotech, Inc., Eatontown, NJ), Osteofil® (Regeneration Technologies, Inc., Alachua, FL), and rat DBM. At 28 days after implantation, qualitative and semiquantitative microscopy showed no significant differences in bone formation between the two lots from each source, but rat DBM produced significantly more bone than Grafton®, which produced significantly more bone than Osteofil®. Our results suggest that methods of graft processing may represent a greater source of variability than do differences among individual donors. Whether these differences relate to methods of demineralization, carrier, dose of DBM per volume, or to some other factor remains to be determined. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 65A: 37–42, 2003