Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-bntjx Total loading time: 0.218 Render date: 2021-05-15T13:46:03.135Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

COMPARISON OF DEMINERALIZED AND DEPROTEINIZED BONE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2011

Ana B. Castro-Ceseña
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada (CICESE), Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada No. 3918, Zona Playitas, 22860, Ensenada, Baja California México
Ekaterina Novitskaya
Affiliation:
UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A.
Po-Yu Chen
Affiliation:
UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A.
M. del Pilar Sánchez-Saavedra
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada (CICESE), Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada No. 3918, Zona Playitas, 22860, Ensenada, Baja California México
Gustavo Hirata
Affiliation:
Centro de Nanociencias y Nanotecnología, UNAM (CNyN-UNAM), Km 107 Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada, Apo. Postal, 356, CP. 22800, Ensenada, México.
Joanna McKittrick
Affiliation:
UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

Cortical and cancellous bones were demineralized and deproteinized using 1 N HCl and 6% NaOCl, respectively. Experiments were performed at 37°C. The rate constants were calculated and the structural features of untreated and completely demineralized and deproteinized samples were studied by scanning electron microscopy, showing that intact, contiguous structures were obtained. For both cases, the rate constant was higher for cancellous bone than the cortical bone.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Chakkalakal, D. A., Strates, B. S., Garvin, K. L., Novak, J. R., Fritz, E. D., Moliner, T. J. and McGuire, M. H.. Tissue Eng. 7, 161 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Mauney, J. R., Jaquiéry, C., Volloch, V., Heberer, M., Martin, I. and Kaplan, D. L.. Biomater. 26, 3173 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Li, X., Jin, L., Balian, G., Laurencin, C. T. and Anderson, D. G.. Biomater. 27, 2426 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Wang, Z.-H., He, X.-J., Yang, Z.-Q. and Tu, J.-B.. Artif. Organs. 34, 161 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Dodds, R.A., York-Ely, A.M., Zhukauskas, R., Arola, T., Howell, J., Hartill, C., Cobb, R.R. and Fox, C.. J. Biomater. Appl. 25, 195 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Benke, D., Olah, A. and Möhler, H.. Biomaterials. 22, 1005 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Carter, D. H., Scully, A. J., Heaton, D. A., Young, M. P. J., and Aaron, J. E.. Bone. 31, 389 (2002).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Stavropoulos, A. and Karring, T.. J. Clin. Periodontol. 37, 200 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Lakes, R.. Nature 361, 511 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Rho, J-Y., Kuhn-Spearing, L. and Zioupos, P.. Med. Eng. Phys. 20, 92 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Weiner, S. and Wagner, H. D.. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 28, 271 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Chen, P.-Y., Lin, A. Y. M., Lin, Y.-S., Seki, Y., Stokes, A.G., Peyras, J., Olevsky, E. A., Meyers, M.A. and McKittrick, J.. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. I, 208 (2008).Google Scholar
13. Birkedal-Hansen, H.. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 22, 428 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Birkedal-Hansen, H.. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 22, 434 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Castro-Ceseña, A.B., Novitskaya, E.E., Chen, P.-Y., Hirata, G.A., and McKittrick, J.. Mat. Sci. Eng. C. (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2010.11.003.Google Scholar
16. Termine, J. D., Eanes, E. D., Greenfield, D. J., Nylen, M. U. and Harbor, R. A.. Calc. Tiss. Res. 12, 73 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Broz, J. J., Simske, S. J., Corley, W. D. and Greenberg, A. R.. J. Mater. Sci. - Mater. Med. 8, 395 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Fantner, G. E., Hassenkam, T., Kindt, J. H., Weaver, J. C., Birkedal, H., Pechenik, L., Cutroni, J. A., Cidade, G. A., Stuky, G. D., Morse, D. E. and Hansma, P. K.. Nat. Mater. 4, 612 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Thurner, P. J., Erickson, B., Turner, P., Jungmann, R., Lelujian, J., Proctor, A., Weaver, J. C., Schitter, G., Morse, D. E. and Hansma, P. K.. Adv. Mater. 21, 451 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. l. and Randall, R. J.. J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265 (1951).Google Scholar
21. Bigi, A., Cojazzi, G., Panzavolta, S., Ripamonti, A., Roveri, N., Romanello, M., Noris Suarez, K. and Moro, L.. J. Inorg. Biochem. 68, 45 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

COMPARISON OF DEMINERALIZED AND DEPROTEINIZED BONE
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

COMPARISON OF DEMINERALIZED AND DEPROTEINIZED BONE
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

COMPARISON OF DEMINERALIZED AND DEPROTEINIZED BONE
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *