This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 CME 4: October, November, December 2004
Basic Science Test 5: Basic Science February 2005
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, B.
Right arrow Articles by Lieberman, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, B.
Right arrow Articles by Lieberman, J. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Basic Science
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 86:2243-2250 (2004)
© 2004 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Osteoinductivity of Commercially Available Demineralized Bone Matrix

Preparations in a Spine Fusion Model

Brett Peterson, MD1, Peter G. Whang, MD1, Roberto Iglesias, MD1, Jeff C. Wang, MD1 and Jay R. Lieberman, MD1

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Center for Health Sciences 76-134, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail address for J.R. Lieberman: jlieberman{at}mednet.ucla.edu

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California

A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).

In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: Although autogenous bone is the most widely used graft material for spinal fusion, demineralized bone matrix preparations are available as alternatives or supplements to autograft. They are prepared by acid extraction of most of the mineralized component, with retention of the collagen and noncollagenous proteins, including growth factors. Differences in allograft processing methods among suppliers might yield products with different osteoinductive activities. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of three different commercially available demineralized bone matrix products for inducing spinal fusion in an athymic rat model.

Methods: Sixty male athymic rats underwent spinal fusion and were divided into three groups of eighteen animals each. Group I received Grafton Putty; Group II, DBX Putty; and Group III, AlloMatrix Injectable Putty. A control group of six animals (Group IV) underwent decortication alone. Six animals from each of the three experimental groups were killed at each of three intervals (two, four, and eight weeks), and the six animals from the control group were killed at eight weeks. At each of the time-points, radiographic and histologic analysis and manual testing of the explanted spines were performed.

Results: The spines in Group I demonstrated higher rates of radiographically evident fusion at eight weeks than did the spines in Group III or Group IV (p < 0.05). Manual testing of the spines at four weeks revealed variable fusion rates (five of six in Group I, two of six in Group II, and none of six in Group III). At eight weeks, all six spines in Group I, three of the six in Group II, and no spine in Group III or IV had fused. Histologic analysis of the spines in Groups I, II, and III demonstrated varying amounts of residual demineralized bone matrix and new bone formation. Group-I spines demonstrated the most new bone formation.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated differences in the osteoinductive potentials of commercially available demineralized bone matrices in this animal model.

Clinical Relevance: Comparative clinical testing of demineralized bone matrices is indicated in order to determine which preparations are best suited for promoting successful spinal fusion in humans.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
W. G. De Long Jr., T. A. Einhorn, K. Koval, M. McKee, W. Smith, R. Sanders, and T. Watson
Bone Grafts and Bone Graft Substitutes in Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery. A Critical Analysis
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2007; 89(3): 649 - 658.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
M. D. McKee
Management of Segmental Bony Defects: The Role of Osteoconductive Orthobiologics
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., September 1, 2006; 14(10): S163 - S167.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. A. Rodeo, C. Hidaka, and S. A. Maher
What's New in Orthopaedic Research
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., October 1, 2005; 87(10): 2356 - 2365.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
K. H. Bridwell, P. A. Anderson, S. D. Boden, A. R. Vaccaro, and J. C. Wang
What's New in Spine Surgery
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2005; 87(8): 1892 - 1901.
[Full Text] [PDF]