STUDY DESIGN: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to detect bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) 2, 4, and 7 in 9 commercially available ("off the shelf") demineralized bone matrix (DBM) product formulations using 3 different manufacturer's production lots of each DBM formulation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the quantity of BMPs among several different DBM formulations (inter-product variability), as well as examine the variability of these proteins in different production lots within the same DBM formulation (intra-product variability). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DBMs are commonly used to augment available bone graft in spinal fusion procedures. Surgeons are presented with an ever-increasing variety of commercially available human DBMs from which to choose. Yet, there is limited information on a specific DBM product's osteoinductive efficacy, potency, and constancy. METHODS: There were protein extracts from each DBM sample separately dialyzed 4 times against distilled water at 4 degrees C for 48 hours. The amount of BMP-2, BMP-4, and BMP-7 was determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS.: The concentrations of detected BMP-2 and BMP-7 were low for all DBM formulations, only nanograms of BMP were extracted from each gram of DBM (20.2-120.6 ng BMP-2/g DBM product; 54.2-226.8 ng BMP-7/g DBM). The variability of BMP concentrations among different lots of the same DBM formulation, intra-product variability, was higher than the variability of concentrations among different DBM formulations, inter-product variability (coefficient of variation range BMP-2 [16.34% to 76.01%], P < 0.01; BMP-7 [3.71% to 82.08%], P < 0.001). BMP-4 was undetectable. CONCLUSIONS: The relative quantities of BMPs in DBMs are low, in the order of 1 x 10(-9) g of BMP/g of DBM. There is higher variability in concentration of BMPs among 3 different lots of the same DBM formulation than among different DBM formulations. This variability questions DBM products' reliability and, possibly, efficacy in providing consistent osteoinduction.
STUDY DESIGN: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to detect bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) 2, 4, and 7 in 9 commercially available ("off the shelf") demineralized bone matrix (DBM) product formulations using 3 different manufacturer's production lots of each DBM formulation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the quantity of BMPs among several different DBM formulations (inter-product variability), as well as examine the variability of these proteins in different production lots within the same DBM formulation (intra-product variability). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DBMs are commonly used to augment available bone graft in spinal fusion procedures. Surgeons are presented with an ever-increasing variety of commercially available human DBMs from which to choose. Yet, there is limited information on a specific DBM product's osteoinductive efficacy, potency, and constancy. METHODS: There were protein extracts from each DBM sample separately dialyzed 4 times against distilled water at 4 degrees C for 48 hours. The amount of BMP-2, BMP-4, and BMP-7 was determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS.: The concentrations of detected BMP-2 and BMP-7 were low for all DBM formulations, only nanograms of BMP were extracted from each gram of DBM (20.2-120.6 ng BMP-2/g DBM product; 54.2-226.8 ng BMP-7/g DBM). The variability of BMP concentrations among different lots of the same DBM formulation, intra-product variability, was higher than the variability of concentrations among different DBM formulations, inter-product variability (coefficient of variation range BMP-2 [16.34% to 76.01%], P < 0.01; BMP-7 [3.71% to 82.08%], P < 0.001). BMP-4 was undetectable. CONCLUSIONS: The relative quantities of BMPs in DBMs are low, in the order of 1 x 10(-9) g of BMP/g of DBM. There is higher variability in concentration of BMPs among 3 different lots of the same DBM formulation than among different DBM formulations. This variability questions DBM products' reliability and, possibly, efficacy in providing consistent osteoinduction.
Authors: Jennifer S McDaniel; Marcello Pilia; Vivek Raut; Jeffrey Ledford; Stefanie M Shiels; Joseph C Wenke; Brian Barnes; Christopher R Rathbone Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Letitia Lim; J Dennis Bobyn; Kristian M Bobyn; Louis-Philippe Lefebvre; Michael Tanzer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Gábor Skaliczki; Károly Schandl; Miklós Weszl; Tibor Major; Miklós Kovács; József Skaliczki; Miklós Szendrői; Csaba Dobó-Nagy; Zsombor Lacza Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 3.075