| Literature DB >> 30691075 |
José Luis Calvo-Guirado1, Alvaro Ballester-Montilla2, Piedad N De Aza3, Manuel Fernández-Domínguez4, Sergio Alexandre Gehrke5, Pilar Cegarra-Del Pino6, Lanka Mahesh7, André Antonio Pelegrine8, Juan Manuel Aragoneses9, José Maté-Sánchez de Val10.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the chemical composition of crushed, extracted human teeth and the quantity of biomaterial that can be obtained from this process. A total of 100 human teeth, extracted due to trauma, decay, or periodontal disease, were analyzed. After extraction, all the teeth were classified, measured, and weighed on a microscale. The human teeth were crushed immediately using the Smart Dentin Grinder machine (KometaBio Inc., Cresskill, NJ, USA), a device specially designed for this procedure. The human tooth particles obtained were of 300⁻1200 microns, obtained by sieving through a special sorting filter, which divided the material into two compartments. The crushed teeth were weighed on a microscale, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation was performed. After processing, 0.25 gr of human teeth produced 1.0 cc of biomaterial. Significant differences in tooth weight were found between the first and second upper molars compared with the lower molars. The chemical composition of the particulate was clearly similar to natural bone. Scanning electron microscopy⁻energy dispersive X-ray (SEM⁻EDX) analysis of the tooth particles obtained mean results of Ca% 23.42 0.34 and P% 9.51 0.11. Pore size distribution curves expressed the interparticle pore range as one small peak at 0.0053 µm. This result is in accordance with helium gas pycnometer findings; the augmented porosity corresponded to interparticle spaces and only 2.533% corresponded to intraparticle porosity. Autogenous tooth particulate biomaterial made from human extracted teeth may be considered a potential material for bone regeneration due to its chemical composition and the quantity obtained. After grinding the teeth, the resulting material increases in quantity by up to three times its original volume, such that two extracted mandibular lateral incisors teeth will provide a sufficient amount of material to fill four empty mandibular alveoli. The tooth particles present intra and extra pores up to 44.48% after pycnometer evaluation in order to increase the blood supply and support slow resorption of the grafted material, which supports healing and replacement resorption to achieve lamellar bone. After SEM⁻EDX evaluation, it appears that calcium and phosphates are still present within the collagen components even after the particle cleaning procedures that are conducted before use.Entities:
Keywords: autogenous particulate dentin graft; autologous graft; bone grafts; ground teeth; human teeth; smart dentin grinder; tooth graft
Year: 2019 PMID: 30691075 PMCID: PMC6384623 DOI: 10.3390/ma12030380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1(a) Human teeth inside the Smart Dentin Grinder chamber; (b) Upper and lower compartment of different sized particles ranging from 300 to 1200 microns; (c) grounded teeth being weighed.
Figure 2The manufacturer’s protocol for grinding teeth.
Figure 3(a) Scanning electron microscopy of teeth particles at 1-mm magnification; (b) augmented evaluation of collagenized tooth particles at 200 microns; (c) particle measurements at 200 microns; and (d) dentin tube measurements at 10 microns.
Figure 4The diffractograms of the samples were compared with data from the Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards (JCPDS) database.
Descriptive test of a mean and standard deviation of each human tooth length, width, and weight of 100 teeth.
| Human Teeth | Mean length ± SD | Mean width ± SD | Mean weight ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upper central incisor | 6.5 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 1.3 ± 0.9 |
| Upper lateral incisor | 5.9 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.5 |
| Upper canine | 7.1 ± 1.2 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 1.1 |
| Upper premolar | 5.6 ± 0.6 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 1.4 ± 0.2 |
| Upper molar | 7.8 ± 0.9 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 1.1 |
| Lower central incisor | 5.2 ± 0.8 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.2 |
| Lower lateral incisor | 5.1 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.7 |
| Lower canine | 6.9 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.7 | 1,2 ± 0.6 |
| Lower premolar | 6.1 ± 0.7 | 1.3 ± 0.6 | 1.4 ± 0.2 |
| Lower molar | 6.9 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 1.1 |
Comparison of the weight and volume of the human extracted teeth after grinding.
| Mineralized Human Particulated Dentin Graft | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight after extraction | 0.25 gr | 0.50 gr | 1.0 gr | 2.0 gr | 3 gr | 4 gr | 5 gr | 6.gr | 7gr |
| Volume after | 0.75 cc | 1.51 cc | 3.10 cc | 6.11 cc | 9.12 cc | 12.7 cc | 15.62 cc | 18.21 cc | 21.74 cc |
Mercury-intruded volume, mode (most frequent diameter) of intraparticle pores, total porosity, and interparticle porosity. (a) 1 µm < pores < 220 µm; (b) pores < 1 um.
| Human Teeth | Intruded Volume (cc/g) | Total Porosity (%) | Intraparticle Porosity (%) a | Interparticle Porosity (%) b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper central incisor | 0.321 | 48.31 | 32.13 | 45.78 |
| Upper lateral incisor | 0.236 | 44.89 | 33.29 | 44.27 |
| Upper canine | 0.456 | 59.87 | 38.78 | 47.81 |
| Upper premolar | 0.562 | 58.20 | 33.29 | 39.76 |
| Upper molar | 0.786 | 67.98 | 36.87 | 45.71 |
| Lower central incisor | 0.145 | 42.17 | 31.89 | 45.99 |
| Lower lateral incisor | 0.164 | 41.74 | 31.78 | 42.29 |
| Lower canine | 0.472 | 61.87 | 33.34 | 46.32 |
| Lower premolar | 0.501 | 56.98 | 37.65 | 47.22 |
| Lower molar | 0.672 | 66.67 | 38.42 | 48.24 |
| Mean ± Sd | 0.431 ± 0.213 | 54.868 ± 9.871 | 34.745 ± 2.841 | 45.339 ± 2.610 |
Figure 5Results obtained by the helium gas pycnometer evaluating the interparticle and intraparticle porosity of the teeth grafts. (a) pore volume; (b) comparative volume pores.
Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X-ray (SEM–EDX) evaluation of each crushed tooth’s chemical composition.
| Human Teeth | 0 (%) | Ca (%) | C (%) | P (%) | N (%) | Mg (%) | Na (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper central incisor | 57.39 ± 0.11 | 23.78 ± 0.31 | 15.48 ± 0.12 | 9.53 ± 0.12 | 4.89 ± 0.11 | 0.96 ± 0.11 | 0.56 ± 0.13 |
| Upper lateral incisor | 51.38 ± 0.42 | 22.41 ± 0.28 | 14.29 ± 0.22 | 8.42 ± 0.11 | 4.07 ± 0.44 | 0.72 ± 0.17 | 0.44 ± 0.35 |
| Upper canine | 58.91 ± 1.1 | 24.89 ± 0.46 | 16.75 ± 0.23 | 10.23 ± 0.52 | 5.08 ± 0.32 | 0.98 ± 0.82 | 0.67 ± 1.8 |
| Upper premolar | 57.99 ± 0.22 | 24.56 ± 0.11 | 16.98 ± 1.87 | 10.55 ± 0.14 | 6.87 ± 0.24 | 1.36 ± 0.18 | 0.71 ± 0.23 |
| Upper molar | 61.27 ± 0.28 | 25.87 ± 0.67 | 17.39 ± 0.26 | 11.76 ± 0.45 | 7.97 ± 0.21 | 1.79 ± 0.22 | 0.74 ± 0.45 |
| Lower central incisor | 49.87 ± 0.33 | 21.11 ± 0.72 | 13.56 ± 0.44 | 7.82 ± 0.12 | 4.01 ± 0.66 | 0.77 ± 0.14 | 0.88 ± 0.56 |
| Lower lateral incisor | 48.66 ± 0.26 | 20.78 ± 0.65 | 13.11 ± 0.27 | 7.43 ± 0.54 | 3.99 ± 0.81 | 0.69 ± 0.36 | 0.48 ± 0.12 |
| Lower canine | 52.19 ± 0.15 | 24.56 ± 0.77 | 16.21 ± 0.98 | 9.68 ± 0.78 | 4.67 ± 0.81 | 0.97 ± 0.26 | 0.66 ± 0.24 |
| Lower premolar | 53.46 ± 0.23 | 24.82 ± 0.12 | 16.34 ± 0.29 | 10.23 ± 0.56 | 5.47 ± 0.54 | 1.06 ± 0.31 | 0.79 ± 0.33 |
| Lower molar | 57.82 ± 0.45 | 25.65 ± 0.38 | 17.13 ± 0.31 | 10.98 ± 0.33 | 6.03 ± 0.16 | 1.45 ± 0.24 | 0.82 ± 0.12 |