Evaluation of the Use of Leftover Graft Materials in Dentistry Procedures

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated the use of leftover graft materials in dental procedures, the sterilisation methods used, and the storage conditions and durations under which leftover graft materials (LGMs) were stored. Materials and Methods: An online survey of 200 Turkish dentists was conducted. The survey consisted of 14 open-ended and multiple-choice questions. Information was sought about the types of grafts the dentists used, their frequency of use, the use of LGMs, whether such LGMs were sterilized before use, and their preferences regarding storage conditions before use. Results: Overall, 81.3% of dentists stated that they used LGMs. Of them, 69.6% did not sterilise the material before use. Also, 59.9% of the dentists thought that LGMs could be used after the package had been opened. When the branch distribution and years of practice of the dentists who answered the question "What do they do with the remaining graft materials after the first use?" were evaluated, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups. When the distribution of dentists who answered the question "Do you re-sterilize the graft before use?" was examined according to their branches, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups. Conclusions: LGMs are frequently used by Turkish dentists after the package has been opened. Future studies should determine the risk of cross-infections and the bioactivity of LGMs.

Keywords

• Allograft
• autogenous graft
• bone graft
• xenograft

Diş Hekimliği İşlemlerinde Kalan Greft Materyallerinin Kullanımının Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada diş hekimliğinde ilk kullanımdan sonra arta kalan greft materyallerinin kullanımı, kullanılan sterilizasyon yöntemleri, arta kalan greft materyallerinin (AGM) saklanma koşulları ve sürelerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Materyal ve Metot: 200 Türk diş hekimine yönelik çevrimiçi bir anket yapıldı. Anket 14 açık uçlu ve çoktan seçmeli sorudan oluşuyordu. Diş hekimlerinin kullandığı greft türleri, kullanım sıklıkları, AGM' lerinin kullanımı, bu AGM' lerinin kullanımdan önce sterilize edilip edilmediği ve kullanımdan önce saklama koşullarıyla ilgili tercihleri ​​hakkında bilgi istendi. Bulgular: Genel olarak diş hekimlerinin %81,3'ü AGM' lerini kullandığını belirtti. Bunların %69,6'sı materyali kullanmadan önce sterilize etmediğini belirtti. Ayrıca diş hekimlerinin %59,9'u AGM' lerinin paket açıldıktan sonra yeniden kullanılabileceğini düşündüğünü belirtti. İlk kullanımdan sonra kalan greft materyallerini ne yapıyorsunuz sorusuna cevap veren diş hekimlerinin branş dağılımı ve tecrübe yılı değerlendirildiğinde gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamamıştır. Grefti kullanmadan önce tekrar sterilize ediyor musunuz? sorusuna cevap veren diş hekimlerinin branşlara göre dağılımı incelendiğinde gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamamıştır. Sonuç: Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre greft materyalleri ilk kullanımdan sonra diş hekimleri tarafından sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Bu nedenle ileriki zamanlarda çapraz enfeksiyon riskini ve greftlerin tekrar kullanımdan sonraki biyoaktivitesini belirlemek için çalışmalar yapılmasına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Allogreft
• kemik grefti
• ksenogreft
• otojen greft

References

1. Amid R, Kheiri A, Kheiri L, Kadkhodazadeh M, Ekhlasmandkermani M. Structural and chemical features of xenograft bone substitutes: A systematic review of in vitro studies. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry. 2021;68(6):1432-1452.
2. Rogowska TJ, Locs J, Salma I, et al. In vivo and in vitro study of a novel nanohydroxyapatite sonocoated scaffold for enhanced bone regeneration. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2019;99:669-684.
3. Kheiri A, Khojasteh A. Purmorphamine as a novel osteoinductive molecule: a systematic review. Journal of" Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration"(Triple R). 2019;4(3):83-90.
4. Zang S, Zhu L, Luo K, et al. Chitosan composite scaffold combined with bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells for bone regeneration: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Oncotarget. 2017;8(67):110890. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.22917
5. Fan YP, Lu JF, Xu AT, He FM. Physiochemical characterization and biological effects of anorganic bovine bone matrix and organic-containing bovine bone matrix in comparison with Bio-Oss in rabbits. Journal of Biomaterials Applications. 2018;33(4):566-575.
6. Ghiretti R, Grottoli CF, Cingolani A, Perale G. Clinical case employing two different biomaterials in bone regeneration. Applied Sciences. 2020;10(13):4516-4525.
7. Long B, Dan L, Jian L, Yunyu H, Shu H, Zhi Y. Evaluation of a novel reconstituted bone xenograft using processed bovine cancellous abone in combination with purified bovine bone morphogenetic protein. Xenotransplantation. 2012;19(2):122-132.
8. Jung Y, Kim WH, Lee SH, et al. Evaluation of new octacalcium phosphate-coated xenograft in the rat calvarial defect model on bone regeneration. Materials. 2020;13(19):4391. doi:10.3390/ma13194391

9. Di Raimondo R, Sanz-Esporrín J, Plá R, et al. Alveolar crest contour changes after guided bone regeneration using different biomaterials: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2020;24:2351-2361.
10. Wang W, Yeung KW. Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review. Bioactive materials. 2017;2(4):224-247.
11. Kao ST, Scott DD. A review of bone substitutes. Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America. 2007;19(4):513-521.
12. Russell N, Oliver RA, Walsh WR. The effect of sterilization methods on the osteoconductivity of allograft bone in a critical-sized bilateral tibial defect model in rabbits. Biomaterials. 2013;34(33):8185-8194.
13. Singh R, Singh D. Sterilization of bone allografts by microwave and gamma radiation. International journal of radiation biology. 2012;88(9):661-666.
14. Utsani WS, Nazarudin T, Putri AR, Chaira MA, Fasda B, Murdiyanto D. Dekiler-box sterility test as an innovation in multifunction sterilization equipment for dental instruments. Atlantis Press; 2018:257-264.
15. Parsayan S. Sterility and bioactivity evaluation of two types of bone graft substitutes after removing the original packaging. 2023; 15(1): 15-21.
16. Fu Shaw L, Chen IH, Chen CS, et al. Factors influencing microbial colonies in the air of operating rooms. BMC infectious diseases. 2018;18:1-8. doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2928-1
17. Kheiri A, Amid R, Torshabi M, Houshmand B, Parsayan S. Sterility and bioactivity evaluation of two types of bone graft substitutes after removing the original packaging. Journal of Advanced Periodontology & Implant Dentistry. 2023;15(1):15. doi:10.34172/japid.2023.007
18. Dhaliwal JS, David SRN, Zulhilmi NR, Sodhi Dhaliwal SK, Knights J, de Albuquerque Junior RF. Contamination of titanium dental implants: a narrative review. SN Applied Sciences. 2020;2:1-10.
19. Kun-Szabó F, Gheorghita D, Ajtai T, et al. Aerosol generation and control in the dental operatory: an in vitro spectrometric study of typical clinical setups. PloS one. 2021;16(2):1. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246543
20. Wada T, Ishihama K, Yonemitsu K, et al. Blood contamination of environmental surfaces in outpatient oral surgery operatory. Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2010;22(1):12-16.
21. Schlund M, Meeus J, Politis C, Ferri J. Management of sinus graft infection—a systematic review. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2022;51(5):690-698.
22. Jeong J, Kim JH, Shim JH, Hwang NS, Heo CY. Bioactive calcium phosphate materials and applications in bone regeneration. Biomaterials research. 2019;23(1):4. doi:10.1186/s40824-018-0149-3
23. Zhao R, Yang R, Cooper PR, Khurshid Z, Shavandi A, Ratnayake J. Bone grafts and substitutes in dentistry: a review of current trends and developments. Molecules. 2021;26(10):3007. doi:10.3390/molecules26103007