Thereafter, despite content in textbooks that said the constituents of teeth are similar to those of bones, the idea of using demineralized teeth as a bone graft material was not actually applied to clinical areas until a long time had passed and the idea was recently reported by domestic research teams to the academic world [12], leading to a sudden increase in attention.
In spite of the fact that the crack was surrounded by living bone, this amorphous material was not invaded, not even by inflammatory cells.
The bone thickness was retained and the implant material was not identified in gross examination.
Group 4 showed a slight inflammatory response, with macrophages, lymphocytes, and eosinocytes present among the materials, and there was a more noticeable increase in connective tissue; however, new bone formation between the materials was not observed (Fig. 5g, h).
In this context it may be worth remarking that small local confined changes in mechanical properties of a composite material are not likely to affect the overall modulus of the bone material, which is always an average (though not necessarily an arithmetic average) of the local properties.
Most of the previously described material is not comparable with the current sample because other bones of the skeleton were sampled or sampling locations differ.
However, the cause of this new bone formation on the buccal sides around the graft materials was not certain.
Due to its poor mechanical properties (brittleness and inflexibility), the use of hydroxyapatite as a substitute bone material is unfortunately limited to places that are not subject to great tension.
Bone turnover, the rate at which the body replaces its own bone material, is an important factor in osteoporosis.
Bones and many other allograft materials are not affected.
