Advanced Biomaterial Xenograft Bovine Bone Substitute Cerabone botiss
The Revu Cerabone

Bone regeneration with a difference from botiss

A satisfactory volume of available bone is an essential prerequisite for successful and predictable implant placement and osseointegration. In situations where bone loss has occurred as a result of tooth loss or extraction, bone regeneration materials have become the established treatment option to compensate for bone loss or to reinforce new bone ingrowth in defect sites.

Today’s implant clinicians have a wide choice of bone grafting materials to replace and regenerate bone matrix including human, bovine or synthetic materials depending on the individual case and patient/clinician preference.

One of the leading and scientifically proven regenerative solutions includes cerabone® (botiss), a natural bovine bone grafting material, which has a successful clinical record of more than 15 years. Its surface, porosity, chemical and structural composition show a strong resemblance to the human mineralized bone matrix1 – 3.

Safety and reliability

Some xenogeneic materials undergo a chemical treatment and low temperature processing of approx. 300°C. Cerabone® on the other hand goes through a unique manufacturing process based on high temperature treatment at >1200°C. This preserves the natural bone structure while reliably removing all organic components, thus making the material safe1 – 4.

Cerabone® is a highly porous bone grafting material with a porosity of ~65-80% and a mean pore size of ~600-900 μm2,5. Macro pores enable a fast ingrowth of blood vessels and bone cells, while micro pores support fast blood uptake by capillary action.

The highly structured, rough surface and interconnected pores of cerabone® lead to excellent hydrophilicity6. The strong capillary action allows fast and efficient penetration of fluids, blood and nutrients into the three-dimensional pore network of the particles. Following rehydration, the particles stick together while the adhesion of proteins and signalling molecules from the blood improve the biologic properties of the material.

The outstanding hydrophilicity and blood uptake of cerabone® can be seen in this video:

Long-term stability

Clinically, cerabone® has demonstrated complete osseous cellular integration and exceptional long-term volume stability3,7 – 9. Because of cerabone’s natural bone surface structure, bone formation begins very early after implantation. In 6-9 months the cerabone® particles are integrated into the newly formed bone matrix and the surface is completely covered by new mineralised bone3,10,11. The particles will not, or only superficially, be reabsorbed over time, thus ensuring excellent structural support and long-term volume stability of the grafted site8,12.

Indications in implantology, oral and CMF surgery

  • Sinus floor elevation
  • Horizontal and vertical augmentation
  • Ridge preservation
  • Peri-implant defects
  • Socket preservation
  • Bone defect augmentation

To see clinical and pre-clinical (in vitro & in vivo) studies relevant to cerabone® visit: www.straumann-uk.co/cerabone-literature

For further product details and clinical cases visit

www.botiss-dental.com/products/cerabone or

www.indication-matrix.com/en/product/cerabone

  1. Tadic D, Epple M. A thorough physicochemical characterisation of 14 calcium phosphate-based bone substitution materials in comparison to natural bone. 2004 Mar;25(6):987-94.
  2. Seidel P, Dingeldein E. cerabone® – Bovine Based Spongiosa Ceramic Seidel et al. Mat.-wiss. u. Werkstofftech. 2004
  3. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Smeets R, Happe A, Fienitz T, Mazor Z, Zöller J. Sinus floor elevation using a sintered, natural bone mineral zzi 27(1) 2011
  4. Brown P, Rau EH, Johnson BK, Bacote AE, Gibbs CJ Jr, Gajdusek DC. New studies on the heat resistance of hamster-adapted scrapie agent: threshold survival after ashing at 600 degrees C suggests an inorganic template of replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Mar 28;97(7):3418-21.
  5. Vanis S, Rheinbach O, Klawonn A, Prymak O, Epple M. Numerical computation of the porosity of bone substitution materials from synchrotron micro computer tomographic data Mat.-wiss. u. Werkstofftech. 2006, 37, No. 6
  6. Trajkovski B, Jaunich M, Müller WD, Beuer F, Zafiropoulos GG, Houshmand A. Hydrophilicity, Viscoelastic, and Physicochemical Properties Variations in Dental Bone Grafting Substitutes. Materials (Basel). 2018 Jan 30;11(2). pii: E215.
  7. Lorean A, Mazor Z, Barbu H, Mijiritsky E, Levin L. Nasal floor elevation combined with dental implant placement: a long-term report of up to 86 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 May-Jun;29(3):705-8.
  8. Riachi F, Naaman N, Tabarani C, Aboelsaad N, Aboushelib MN, Berberi A, Salameh Z. Influence of material properties on rate of resorption of two bone graft materials after sinus lift using radiographic assessment. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:737262.
  9. Fienitz T, Moses O, Klemm C, Happe A, Ferrari D, Kreppel M, Ormianer Z, Gal M, Rothamel D. Histological and radiological evaluation of sintered and non-sintered deproteinized bovine bone substitute materials in sinus augmentation procedures. A prospective, randomized-controlled, clinical multicenter study. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Apr;21(3):787-794.
  10. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Fienitz T, Smeets R, Dreiseidler T, Ritter L, Happe A, Zöller J. Biocompatibility and biodegradation of a native porcine pericardium membrane: results of in vitro and in vivo examinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jan-Feb;27(1):146-54.
  11. Tawil G, Barbeck M, Unger R, Tawil P, Witte F. Sinus Floor Elevation Using the Lateral Approach and Window Repositioning and a Xenogeneic Bone Substitute as a Grafting Material: A Histologic, Histomorphometric, and Radiographic Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 September/October;33(5):1089–1096.
  12. Tawil G, Tawil P, Khairallah A. Sinus Floor Elevation Using the Lateral Approach and Bone Window RepositioningI: Clinical and Radiographic Results in 102 Consecutively Treated Patients Followed from 1 to 5 Years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Jul-Aug;31(4):827-34.

Leave a Reply