Patent Grant
8753689
This invention relates to a method of making demineralized bone particles useful in, or as, implants having a variety of orthopedic applications. More particularly, this invention relates to a method of making particles from demineralized bone that results in a greater yield of demineralized bone particles than that provided by prior art methods of producing such particles.
The manufacture of demineralized bone particles and compositions, materials and devices containing demineralized bone particles and their use in the repair of bone defects and for other orthopedic applications are known.
The microstructure of cortical bone consists of bundles, or fibers, of mineralized collagen that are oriented parallel to the long axis of the known methods for making demineralized bone particles involve subdividing sections of whole, i.e., mineralized, bone, e.g., by such mechanical operations as shredding, milling, shaving, machining, etc., to provide particles which are then demineralized, e.g., by treatment with acid. The resulting demineralized bone particles exhibit osteoinductive properties that make them useful as, or in, implants intended for use in bone repair and other orthopedic applications. One drawback of known methods of making demineralized bone particles is that only a portion of the bone stock, e.g., 45-65% by weight, will yield demineralized bone particles. In addition, because of the mechanical limitations of the bone milling machinery, e.g., the need to grip the bone stock in the jaws of the machine, only donor bone of a fairly substantial size, e.g., intact cortical shafts, can be used as to the source of the demineralized bone particles.
The limited amount of demineralized bone particles that is obtained by the prior art methods is of concern due to the limited availability of donor bone. At this time, regulations do not permit the pooling of donor bone material. Since the quantity of demineralized bone particles that can be obtained is limited both by the availability of donor bone and the size of the bone, there is a need for a method of making demineralized bone particles that is not subject to the constraints imposed by these limiting factors.
It is an object of the invention to provide a method of making demineralized bone particles which makes optimum use of donor bone.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a method of making demineralized bone particles that results in a greater yield of particles for a given quantity of whole bone compared to that provided by prior art methods.
It is yet another object of the invention to provide demineralized bone particles in the form of fibers or fibrous bundles of bone collagen by application of mechanical pressure to demineralized bone stock.
Further objects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of the above objects and the foregoing specification.
In keeping with these and related objects of the invention, there is provided a method of making demineralized bone particles which comprises demineralizing whole bone and thereafter subdividing the demineralized bone into demineralized bone particles.
In general, the yield of demineralized bone particles obtained by the method of this invention is significantly greater, e.g., from about 5 to about 20 wt. % greater, than that obtained by first subdividing the whole bone into mineralized bone particles and only thereafter demineralizing the mineralized bone particles to provide demineralized bone particles.
The term “particles” as utilized herein is intended to include relatively small bone pieces such as fibers, bundles of loosely connected fibers, threads, narrow strips, thin sheets, chips, shards, powders, etc., that possess regular, irregular or random geometries and which may, or may not be, completely separated from each other.
The expression “whole bone” as utilized herein refers to bone that contains its full naturally occurring mineral content and includes anatomically complete bones and sections thereof.
The term “demineralized” as used herein refers to bone containing less than about 95% of its original mineral context. The expression “fully demineralized” as used herein refers to bone containing less than about 5% of its original mineral context.
The terms “osteogenic” as used herein shall be understood to refer to the ability of a material or substance to induce new bone formation via the participation of living cells from within the substance and “osteogenesis” as the mechanism or result.
The terms “osteoinductive” as used herein shall be understood to refer to the ability of a material or substance to recruit cells from the host which have osteogenic potential and the ability to form ectopic bone and “osteoinduction” as the mechanism or result.
The terms “osteoconductive” as used herein shall be understood to refer to the ability of a material or substance or material to provide surfaces that are receptive to the growth of new host bone and “osteoconduction” as the mechanism or result.
The terms “autogenic”, “allogenic” and “xenogenic” are used herein relative to the ultimate recipient of the bone tissue.
The whole bone suitable for making the demineralized bone particles of this invention can be donor bone from any source. Thus, autogenic, allogenic or xenogenic bone can be used with autogenic and allogenic bone being preferred. An especially useful source of xenogenic tissue can be porcine, equine, or bovine. The bone can be cortical, cancellous or corticocancellous. The preferred bone is cortical allogenic bone, e.g., femur, tibia, fibula, radius, ulna, etc.
The method of this invention is applicable to whole bone in a variety of sizes. Therefore, the bone utilized as the starting, or stock, material will range in size from relatively small pieces of bone to bone of such dimensions as to be recognizable as to its anatomical origin. In general, the pieces or sections of whole bone stock can range from about 1 to about 400 mm, and preferably from about 5 to about 100 mm, in median length, from about 0.5 to about 20 mm, and preferably from about 2 to about 10 mm, in median thickness and from about 1 to about 20 mm, and preferably from about 2 to about 10 mm, in median width.
After the bone is obtained from the donor, it is processed, e.g., cleaned, disinfected, defatted, etc., using methods well known in the art. The entire bone can then be demineralized or, if desired, the bone can just be sectioned before demineralization. The entire bone or one or more of its sections is then subjected to demineralization in order to reduce the inorganic content to a low level, e.g., to contain less than about 10% by weight, preferably less than about 5% by weight and more preferably less than about 1% by weight, residual calcium.
Demineralization of the bone can be accomplished in accordance with known and conventional procedures. Demineralization procedures remove the inorganic mineral component of bone by employing acid solutions. Such procedures are well known in the art, see for example, Reddi et al., Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 69, pp. 1601-1605 (1972), incorporated herein by reference. The strength of the acid solution, the shape and size of the bone and the duration of the demineralization procedure will determine the extent of demineralization. Generally speaking larger bone portions as compared to small particles will require more lengthy and vigorous demineralization. Guidance for specific parameters for the demineralization of different size bone can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,846,484, Harakas, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, pp 239-251(1983) and Lewandrowski et al., Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 31, pp. 365-372 (1996), each of which is incorporated by reference herein.
In a demineralization procedure useful in the practice of the invention herein, the bone is subjected to a defatting/disinfecting step that is followed by an acid demineralization step. A useful defatting/disinfectant solution is an aqueous solution of ethanol, the ethanol being a good solvent for lipids and the water being a good hydrophilic carrier to enable the solution to penetrate more deeply into the bone particles. The aqueous ethanol solution also disinfects the bone by killing vegetative microorganisms and viruses. Ordinarily at least about 10 to about 40 weight percent by weight of water (i.e., about 60 to about 90 weight percent of defatting agent such as alcohol) should be present in the defatting/disinfecting solution to produce optimal lipid removal and disinfection within the shortest period of time. A useful concentration range of the defatting solution is from about 60 to 85 weight percent alcohol or about 70 weight percent alcohol. An alternative or supplemental defatting solution is made from a surfactant such as Triton X-100 at a concentration of 0.1% to 10% in water. Following defatting, the bone is immersed in acid over time to effect demineralization. Acids which can be employed in this step include inorganic acids such as hydrochloric acid and organic acids such as peracetic acid. After acid treatment, the demineralized bone is rinsed with sterile water for injection to remove residual amounts of acid and thereby raise the pH.
Following demineralization, the bone is subdivided into demineralized bone particles of desired configuration and size. Useful for the subdivision of the demineralized bone are machines or instruments known to the arts of, e. shredding, milling, pressing, shaving, machining, extruding and/or cutting, of hard or brittle materials such as wood, plastics, soft metals, ceramics and the like. Particularly preferred are mills, including impact mills, grating mills, shearing mills and cutting mills. Many of the preferred instruments for the subdivision of the demineralized bone will fragment the demineralized bone, by cutting or separating the demineralized material in direction parallel to the underlying collagen fibers
Particularly preferred types of equipment or machine useful for shredding, cutting hard or brittle materials such as wood, plastics, soft metals that can be used to subdivide the demineralized bone include impact mills, grating mills, shearing mills and cutting mills. Many preferred cutting and milling instruments and or machine will fragment the demineralized bone, by cutting or separating the demineralized material in direction parallel or nearly parallel to the underlying collagen fibers. Mills, presses and extruders are particularly useful in this regards.
An impact mill has blunt rotors or swinging hammers that move at high speed and subdivide the demineralized bone stock by impacting upon the bone shattering it into fragmentary particles. The bone tends to shatter along the lines of the natural collagen bundles constituting the microstructure of the bone. Similar mills with sharp cutting rotors tend to chop the bone into somewhat symmetric particles as opposed to the fibrous particles obtained with an impact mill. Impact speed is a factor that influences the result. Too low a speed may cause the bone to plastically deform rather than shatter into particles as required. This and similar factors involved in the operation of a particular type or model of impact mill to provide demineralized bone fibers can be optimized employing routine experimentation.
A shearing mill subdivides demineralized bone stock by tearing the bone apart. The tearing action tends to preferentially break the bone apart at its weakest point. The junctions between demineralized collagen bundles represent weak points and the result is the production of fiber type particles.
The spindle element of a lathe can be adapted to carry a rotary grinding wheel whose circumferential surface is studded with projecting cutting elements. As the bone stock is pressed against the rotating wheel, the cutting elements produce fiber-type particles. In this type of particle-forming operation, the resulting fibrous particles are not separated along the lines of natural collagen bundles.
Still other apparatus useful in milling bone particles according to the invention includes mills available from IKA® Works (Wilmington, N.C.) such as the model A 10 IKA-Analytical Mill or the model M 20 IKA-Universal Mill. Such mills have cooling connections and are suitable for the grinding of hard and brittle substances with a maximum grain size of 6-7 mm. It has been determined that a stainless steel star-shaped cutter provides particles of a useful size. Other milling machines useful in the practice of the invention herein include drum cutter bone mills such as those available from Tracer Designs, Inc. (Santa Paula, Calif.), e.g., its bone mill model BM1000.
A particularly effective method for subdividing demineralized bone stock is to subject the bone to pressing. The simplest pressing technique is to apply pressure to the unconstrained demineralized bone. Examples include pressing the bone using a mortar and pestle, applying a rolling/pressing motion such as is generated by a rolling pin, or pressing the bone pieces between flat or curved plates. These flattening pressures cause the bone fibers to separate. Unlike the prior art method for making fibers from mineralized bone, pressing demineralized bone in accordance with the present invention provides intact natural bone collagen fibers (not composite fibers made from joined short fiber sections) that can be as long as the fibers in the demineralized bone stock from which they were obtained.
Another pressing technique involves mechanically pressing demineralized bone which is constrained within a sealed chamber having a hole (or a small number of holes) in its floor or bottom plate. The separated fibers extrude through the holes with the hole diameter limiting the maximum diameter of the extruded fibers. As with the unconstrained pressing method, this constrained technique results in fibers that are largely intact (as far as length is concerned) but separated bone collagen bundles.
In a combined unconstrained/constrained pressing technique that results in longer fibers by minimizing fiber breakage, the demineralized bone is first pressed into an initially separated mass of fibers while in the unconstrained condition and thereafter these fibers are constrained within the sealed chamber where pressing is continued.
In general, pressing of demineralized bone to provide demineralized bone particles can be carried out at from about 1,000 to about 40,000 psi, and preferably at from about 5,000 to about 20,000 psi.
Depending on the procedure employed for producing the demineralized bone particles, one can obtain a mass of bone particles in which at least about 80 weight percent, preferably at least about 90 weight percent and most preferably at least about 95 weight percent, of the particles possess a median length of from about 2 to about 300 mm or greater, preferably a median length of from about 5 to about 50 mm, a median thiclmess of from about 0.5 to about 15 mm, preferably a median thickness of from about 1 to about 5 mm, a median width of from about 2 to about 35 mm, preferably a median width of from about 2 to about 20 mm and a median length to thickness ratio and/or a median length to width ratio of from about 2 to 200, preferably from about 10 to about 100. If desired, the mass of bone particles can be graded or sorted into different sizes, e.g., by screening, and/or any less desirable size(s) of bone particles that may be present can be reduced or eliminated.
At this time, depending upon their intended final usage, the demineralized bone particles can be utilized as is or stored under aseptic conditions, advantageously in a lyophilized or frozen state, for use at a later time.
The demineralized bone particles of this invention find use as, or in implants, for a variety of orthopedic procedures where they participate in the bone healing/repair process through one or more mechanisms such as osteogenesis, osteoinduction and osteoconduction. The demineralized bone particles can be used as is, or formed into a variety of product types such as a gel, putty, or sheet. The demineralized bone particles can optionally be admixed with one or more substances such as adhesives, fillers, plasticizers, flexibilizing agents, biostatic/biocidal agents, surface active agents, binding and bonding agents, and the like, prior to, during, or after shaping the particles into a desired configuration. Suitable adhesives, binding agents and bonding agents include acrylic resins, cellulosics, bioresorbable polymers such as polyesters, polycarbonates, polyarylates and polyfumarates. Specifically, tyrosine, polycarbonates, tyrosine polyarylates, polyglycolides, polylactides, glycolide-lactide copolymer, etc. Suitable fillers include bone powder, demineralized bone powder, hydroxyapatite, etc. Suitable plasticizers and flexibilizing agents include liquid polyhydroxy compounds such as glycerol, monacetin, diacetin, etc. Suitable biostatic/biocidal agents include antibiotics, providone, sugars, etc. Suitable surface-active agents include the biocompatible nonionic, cationic, anionic and amphoteric surfactants.
If desired, the demineralized bone particles can be modified in one or more ways, e.g., their protein content can be augmented or modified as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,743,259 and 4,902,296, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein. Any of a variety of medically and/or surgically useful substances can be incorporated in or associated with the bone particles either before, during or after their formation. Thus, e.g., one or more of such substances can be introduced into the demineralized bone particles, e.g., by soaking or immersing the bone particles in a solution or dispersion of the desired substance(s).
Medically/surgically useful substances which can be readily combined with the demineralized bone particles of this invention include, e.g., collagen, insoluble collagen derivatives, etc., and soluble solids and/or liquids dissolved therein, e.g., antiviricides, particularly those effective against HIV and hepatitis; antimicrobials and or antibiotics such as erythromycin, bacitracin, neomycin, penicillin, polymyxin B, tetracyclines, viomycin, chloromycetin and streptomycins, cefazolin, ampicillin, azactam, tobramycin, clindamycin and gentamicin, etc.; biocidal/biostatic sugars such as dextrose, glucose, etc.; amino acids, peptides, vitamins, inorganic elements, co-factors for protein synthesis; hormones; endocrine tissue or tissue fragments; synthesizers; enzymes such as collagenase, peptidases, oxidases, etc.; polymer cell scaffolds with fragments; synthesizers; enzymes such as collagenase, peptidases, oxidases, etc.; polymer cell scaffolds with parenchymal cells; angiogenic drugs and polymeric carriers containing such drugs; collagen lattices; antigenic agents; cytosketetal agents; cartilage fragments, living cells such as chondrocytes, bone marrow cells, mesenchymal stem cells, natural extracts, tissue transplants, bone, demineralized bone powder, autogenous tissues such blood, serum, soft tissue, bone marrow, etc.; bioadhesives, bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs), transforming growth factor (TGF-beta), insulin-like growth factors (IGF-1) (IGF-2); platelet derived growth factors (PDGF); growth hormones such as somatotropin; bone digestors; antitumor agents; immuno-suppressants; permeation enchancers, e.g., fatty acid esters such as laureate, myristate and stearate monoesters of polyethylene glycol, enamine derivatives, alpha-keto aldehydes, etc.; and, nucleic acids. The amounts of such optionally added substances can vary widely with optimum levels being readily determined in a specific case by routine experimentation.
The method of this invention will be better understood by way of example. As is the case throughout this application, all parts are by weight unless otherwise specified. The examples are provided as a means for explaining the invention herein and are not intended to limit the invention in any way.
A right diaphysis (99 g) of human donor origin was divided lengthwise into four sections. The total weight of all the sections was 94 g. The bone sections were placed in a 2-liter container along with 1410 ml of a 0.6 N HCl solution. After approximately 6 hours the solution was removed and replaced with another 1410-ml portion of the acid solution. The bone sections and second aliquot of acid solution were subjected to mild vortexing with a magnetic stirrer for two days. The bone sections were demineralized until they were completely translucent without any visible mineralized areas indicating substantially complete demineralization. The demineralized bone sections were then rinsed with water until the pH of the rinse water was above 4.0. The demineralized bone sections were then soaked in 70% ethanol for 1 hour. The demineralized bone sections were cut with scissors to fit into a model M 20 IKA-Universal Mill and processed in the mill for about 30 seconds to produce demineralized bone particles in the form of fibers (yield 17.98 g, 110 cc). The fibers were then frozen and lyophilized for about 12-15 hours.
119 g of mineralized human donor bone was milled in the milling machine described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,607,269 to provide a quantity of mineralized bone particles in the form of fibers. The mineralized fibers were then subjected to a demineralization process described as follows. Allogenic cortical bone is placed in a reactor. A 0.6 N solution of HC1 at 15 ml per gram of bone is introduced into the reactor, the demineralization reaction proceeding for 1 to 2 hours. Following drainage of the HCl, the bone is covered with 0.6 N HCl/20 ppm-2000 ppm nonionic surfactant solution for 24 to 48 hours. Following drainage of the HCL/surfactant solution, 0.6 N HCl at 15 ml per gram of bone is introduced into the reactor, the demineralization reaction proceeding for another 40 to 50 minutes resulting in substantially complete demineralization of the starting cortical bone. Following drainage through a sieve, the demineralized bone is rinsed three times with water for injection at 15 ml per gram bone weight with the water for injection being replaced at 15-minute intervals. Following drainage of the water for injection, the demineralized bone is covered with alcohol and allowed to soak for at least 30 minutes. The alcohol is then drained and the bone is rinsed with water for injection. The demineralized bone is then subdivided in the bone milling apparatus of U.S. Pat. No. 5,607,269 to yield a mass of demineralized bone particles of fibrous configuration. The demineralized bone elements are then drained and transferred to a lyophilization tray and frozen at −70° C. for at least 6 hours. The demineralized bone particles are then lyophilized following standard procedures for 24 to 48 hours. After drying, the demineralized bone particles are sorted for size. The yield of substantially fully demineralized bone particles made following this procedure, as measured before drying, was yield 15.27 g, 75 cc.
The following table compares the yields between the method of Example 2 illustrating the present invention and the prior art method illustrated in the Comparative Example:
As these data show, the method of this invention in which demineralization of the whole bone precedes its subdivision into demineralized bone particles (Example 1) yielded almost 50 wt. % more useful product than that resulting from the prior art method in which demineralization is conducted only after the whole bone has been subdivided into mineralized bone particles (Comparative Example).
Substantially fully demineralized fibula cross sections of about 25 mm in length were initially pressed between two flat plates of a Carver press[?] at pressures ranging from 5,000 up to about 20,000 psi. This first pressing operation flattened the bone sections and began to separate their collagen bundles into fibers. This material was then [“fluffed up”] and pressed again employing similar pressures as before. The pressing operation was again repeated yielding a mass of coarse bundles of fibers that were not completely separated from each other. The yield of fibers was about 50 wt. % based on the volume of the [starting demineralized bone sections] and many of the fibers possessed lengths that were nearly as great as the natural fibers of the bone stock. The fibers ranged in length from 10-15 mm, with some fibers in the range of from 20-25 mm, and possessed diameters of about 2 mm. Material that was not in fiber form remained in bundled fiber clumps.
The fibers were further subdivided in an impact mill for [30 seconds] resulting in a reduction of the diameters of many of the fibers and fiber bundles without, however, significantly reducing their length. Thus, the fibers continued to fall within the aforesaid range of length but their diameters were now within the range of from about 0.5 to about 2 mm.
Demineralized fibula cross sections, about 25 mm in length, were placed in a series of 29 mm diameter press cells possessing single orifices in their bottoms having diameters of 1, 2 and 3 mm, respectively. Under pressures of from 5,000-10,000 psi, the demineralized bone sections subdivided into fibers which extruded through the orifices. Yields of demineralized fiber were on the order of nearly 100 wt. % in almost every case; little or no bone remained in the cells.
A cell pressing procedure similar to that of Example 4 was carried out on demineralized bone sections of from 4 to 8 mm in length in a 29 mm diameter press cell having a single orifice of 0.75 mm diameter. At a press load of 5,000 to 10,000 psi, the bone sections subdivided into fibers that ranged in length from 25 to 50% of the length of the bone sections from which they were obtained. Yield of fiber was about 50 wt. %. The fibers ranged in length from about 1-5 mm and possessed a diameter of about 0.5 mm.
Substantially fully demineralized fibula cross sections of about 25 mm in length were pressed in the press cells described in Example 4. At pressures ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 psi, the bone sections subdivided into fibers having the dimensions set forth in the following table:
The pressing operations described in Example 5 were substantially repeated but were preceded by a preliminary pressing carried out in a Carver press at 15,000 psi. The resulting demineralized bone fibers possessed smaller diameters, and consequently, greater length to diameter ratios, than the fibers obtained in Example 6.
Substantially fully demineralized whole fibula shafts were subdivided into fibrous particles employing a Tracer (rotary grater) mill. Fiber length was about 5 mm, diameter was about 0.5 mm and fiber yield was about 70 wt. %.
Example 8 was repeated but with fibula sections of 4-8 mm in length. Fiber length was about 3-5 mm, diameter was about 0.5 mm and fiber yield was about 50 wt %.
A model M5A Fitzpatrick Mill was employed to subdivide substantially fully demineralized bovine bone chips of 4-10 mm into fibrous particles having a length of about 1-2 mm and a diameter of about 0.2-0.7 mm in a yield of about 70 wt. %.
Example 9 was repeated but employing a model M 20 IKA-Universal Mill to subdivide the demineralized bovine bone chips. The fibers in the fiber-fraction produced by the mill had a length of about 1-2 mm, a diameter of about 0.5-1 mm and the fiber yield was about 10%.
Example 9 was repeated but employing a Megatron homogenizer (Glen Mills Inc., Maywood, N.J.). The resulting fibers, produced in a yield of about 70 wt. %, possessed a length of about 1-3 mm and a diameter of about 0.2-0.5 mm.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/010,084, filed Jan. 20, 2011, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,529,962, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/951,084, filed Dec. 5, 2007, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,939,108, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/433,588, filed Jun. 5, 2003, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,323,193, and was filed as application No. PCT/US2001/048384 on Dec. 14, 2001, the contents of each of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 159334 | Kumpf | Feb 1875 | A |
| 781882 | Hunter | Feb 1905 | A |
| 2516438 | Wheeler | Jul 1950 | A |
| 2968593 | Rapkin | Jan 1961 | A |
| 3458397 | Myers et al. | Jul 1969 | A |
| 3609867 | Hodosh | Oct 1971 | A |
| 3739773 | Schmitt et al. | Jun 1973 | A |
| 3790507 | Hodosh | Feb 1974 | A |
| 3829904 | Ling et al. | Aug 1974 | A |
| 3891997 | Herbert | Jul 1975 | A |
| 3922726 | Trentani et al. | Dec 1975 | A |
| 3947287 | Belde et al. | Mar 1976 | A |
| 4059684 | Gross et al. | Nov 1977 | A |
| 4123806 | Amstutz et al. | Nov 1978 | A |
| 4134792 | Boguslaski et al. | Jan 1979 | A |
| 4172128 | Thiele et al. | Oct 1979 | A |
| 4191747 | Scheicher | Mar 1980 | A |
| 4209434 | Wilson et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
| 4224698 | Hopson | Sep 1980 | A |
| 4291013 | Wahlig et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
| 4294753 | Urist | Oct 1981 | A |
| 4355331 | Georges et al. | Oct 1982 | A |
| 4363319 | Altshuler | Dec 1982 | A |
| 4394370 | Jefferies | Jul 1983 | A |
| 4430760 | Smestad | Feb 1984 | A |
| 4440370 | Rood | Apr 1984 | A |
| 4440750 | Glowacki et al. | Apr 1984 | A |
| 4450592 | Niederer et al. | May 1984 | A |
| 4458733 | Lyons | Jul 1984 | A |
| 4472840 | Jefferies | Sep 1984 | A |
| 4485097 | Bell | Nov 1984 | A |
| 4512038 | Alexander et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
| 4516276 | Mittelmeier et al. | May 1985 | A |
| 4563350 | Nathan et al. | Jan 1986 | A |
| 4563489 | Urist | Jan 1986 | A |
| 4581030 | Bruns et al. | Apr 1986 | A |
| 4595713 | St. John | Jun 1986 | A |
| 4620327 | Caplan et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
| 4623553 | Ries et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
| 4627853 | Campbell et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
| 4636526 | Dorman et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
| 4637931 | Schmitz | Jan 1987 | A |
| 4678470 | Nashef et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
| 4698375 | Dorman et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
| 4709703 | Lazarow et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
| 4743259 | Bolander et al. | May 1988 | A |
| 4795463 | Gerow | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4795467 | Piez et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4824939 | Simpson | Apr 1989 | A |
| 4842604 | Dorman et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
| 4857269 | Wang et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4863472 | Tormala et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4888366 | Chu et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
| 4902296 | Bolander et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4919939 | Baker | Apr 1990 | A |
| 4932973 | Gendler | Jun 1990 | A |
| 4946792 | O'Leary | Aug 1990 | A |
| 4950296 | McIntyre | Aug 1990 | A |
| 4961707 | Magnusson et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
| 4975526 | Kuberasampath et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
| 4994030 | Glowczewskie, Jr. et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
| 5001169 | Nathan et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
| 5007930 | Dorman et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5015247 | Michelson | May 1991 | A |
| 5032445 | Scantlebury et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
| 5053049 | Campbell | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5073373 | O'Leary et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5092887 | Gendler | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5108399 | Eitenmuller et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
| 5112354 | Sires | May 1992 | A |
| 5123925 | Smestad et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5139527 | Redl et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5162114 | Kuberasampath et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5171278 | Pisharodi | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5171574 | Kuberasampath et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5197882 | Jernberg | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5207710 | Chu et al. | May 1993 | A |
| 5236456 | O'Leary et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5284655 | Bogdansky et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5290558 | O'Leary et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5298254 | Prewett et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5306304 | Gendler | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5314476 | Prewett et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5314478 | Oka et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5329846 | Bonnuti | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5343877 | Park | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5366507 | Sottosanti | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5368859 | Dunn et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5405390 | O'Leary et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5405402 | Dye et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5425639 | Anders | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5425762 | Muller | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5432000 | Young et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5439684 | Prewett et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5441517 | Kensey et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5447725 | Damani et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5449375 | Vidal et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5455041 | Genco et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5464439 | Gendler | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5476880 | Cooke et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5480436 | Bakker et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5484601 | O'Leary et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5490962 | Cima et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5507813 | Dowd et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5510396 | Prewett et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5518680 | Cima et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5531791 | Wolfinbarger, Jr. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5545222 | Bonutti | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5556430 | Gendler | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5567806 | Abdul-Malak et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5607269 | Dowd et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5641518 | Badylak et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5656593 | Kuberasampath et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5662710 | Bonutti | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5676146 | Scarborough | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5683459 | Brekke | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5700479 | Lundgren | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5707962 | Chen et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5723117 | Nakai et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5727945 | Dannenbaum | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5782919 | Zdeblick et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5807437 | Sachs et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5846484 | Scarborough et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5888219 | Bonutti | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5899939 | Boyce et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5910315 | Stevenson et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5922753 | Petrie et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 6030635 | Gertzman et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6090998 | Grooms et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6123731 | Boyce et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6132472 | Bonutti | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6206923 | Boyd et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6224630 | Bao et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6294187 | Boyce et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6311690 | Jefferies | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6326018 | Gertzman et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6340477 | Anderson | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6361565 | Bonutti | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6375663 | Ebner et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6432436 | Gertzman et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6436138 | Dowd et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6436139 | Shapiro et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6437018 | Gertzman et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6458375 | Gertzman et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6599515 | Delmotte | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6599520 | Scarborough et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6616698 | Scarborough | Sep 2003 | B2 |
| 6630153 | Long et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
| 6632247 | Boyer, II et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
| 6638309 | Bonutti | Oct 2003 | B2 |
| 6652592 | Grooms et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6652593 | Boyer, II et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6706067 | Shimp et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
| RE38522 | Gertzman et al. | May 2004 | E |
| 6733534 | Sherman | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6736853 | Bonutti | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6776938 | Bonutti | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6808585 | Boyce et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
| 6843807 | Boyce et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
| 6855169 | Boyer, II et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6863694 | Boyce et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6911212 | Gertzman et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6913621 | Boyd et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 7045141 | Merboth et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7163691 | Knack et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| RE39587 | Gertzman et al. | Apr 2007 | E |
| 7311713 | Johnson et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7323193 | Morris et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 20020026244 | Trieu | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020035401 | Boyce et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020055143 | Bell et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107570 | Sybert et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120338 | Boyer, II et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020161449 | Muschler | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20030009235 | Manrique et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030036800 | Meredith | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030045934 | Bonutti | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030105528 | Shimp et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20040023387 | Morris et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040097612 | Rosenberg et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040220681 | Cole et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20050065214 | Kronenthal | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050170396 | Baker et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20060002976 | Kronenthal | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060013857 | Kronenthal | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060030948 | Manrique et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060147545 | Scarborough et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060280801 | Kronenthal | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 179 833 | Feb 1905 | DE |
| 44 34 459 | Apr 1996 | DE |
| 29608321 | Aug 1996 | DE |
| 0 082 621 | Jun 1983 | EP |
| 0 243 151 | Oct 1987 | EP |
| 0 267 015 | May 1988 | EP |
| 0 321 442 | Jun 1989 | EP |
| 0 366 029 | May 1990 | EP |
| 0 406 856 | Jan 1991 | EP |
| 0405429 | Jan 1991 | EP |
| 0 411 925 | Feb 1991 | EP |
| 0 413 492 | Feb 1991 | EP |
| 0 419 275 | Mar 1991 | EP |
| 0 483 944 | May 1992 | EP |
| 0 495 284 | Jul 1992 | EP |
| 0 520 237 | Dec 1992 | EP |
| 0 555 807 | Aug 1993 | EP |
| 0 567 391 | Oct 1993 | EP |
| 0 693 523 | Jan 1996 | EP |
| 1 142 581 | Oct 2001 | EP |
| 2691901 | Dec 1993 | FR |
| 2175807 | Oct 1986 | GB |
| 90591986 | Mar 1986 | JP |
| 2121652 | May 1990 | JP |
| 3210270 | Sep 1991 | JP |
| 4097747 | Feb 1992 | JP |
| 9506281 | Jun 1997 | JP |
| 0880425 | Nov 1981 | SU |
| WO 8607265 | Dec 1986 | WO |
| WO 8904646 | Jun 1989 | WO |
| WO 8911880 | Dec 1989 | WO |
| WO 9421196 | Sep 1994 | WO |
| WO 9515776 | Jun 1995 | WO |
| WO 9639203 | Dec 1996 | WO |
| WO 9725941 | Jul 1997 | WO |
| WO 9800183 | Jan 1998 | WO |
| WO 9817209 | Apr 1998 | WO |
| WO 9840113 | Sep 1998 | WO |
| WO 9939757 | Aug 1999 | WO |
| WO 0034556 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| WO 0035510 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| WO 0050102 | Aug 2000 | WO |
| WO 0108584 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO 0202156 | Jan 2002 | WO |
| WO 0247587 | Jun 2002 | WO |
| WO 2004108023 | Dec 2004 | WO |
| WO 2006057011 | Jun 2006 | WO |
| WO 2006076712 | Jul 2006 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Abel, E. “The vapor phase above the system sulfuric acid-water.” J. Phys. Chem. 50(3), pp. 260-283 (1946). |
| Abjornson et al., “A Novel Approach to Bone Grafting Substitutes”, Society for Biomaterials, p. 1372 (2000). |
| Bautista, Catalino M. et al. “Isolation of a novel insulin-like growth factor (IGF) binding protein from human bone: A potential candidate for fixing IGF-II in human bone,” Biochem. and Biophys. Research Communications, 176(2): 756-763 (Apr. 30, 1991). |
| Block, Michael S., D.M.D. et al., “Bone Maintenance 5 to 10 years After Sinus Grafting”, J. Oral Maxillofacial Surg., vol. 56, pp. 706-714, 1998. |
| Bobyn et al., “The Optimum Pore Size for the Fixation of Porous-Surfaced Metal Implants by Ingrowth of Bone”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1980, pp. 263-270. |
| Bostrom et al., “Use of Bone Morphogeneic Protein-2 in the Rabbit Ulnar Nonunion Model”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 327, pp. 272-282 (1996). |
| Covey et al., “Clinical Induction of Bone Repair with Demineralized Bone Matrix or a Bone Morphogenetic Protein”, Orthopaedic Review, Aug. 1989, vol. XVIII, No. 8, pp. 857-863. |
| Crowe et al., “Inhibition of Enzymatic Digestion of Amylose by Free Fatty Acids in Vitro Contributes to Resistant Starch Formation”, J. Nutr. 130(8): 2006-2008, 2000. |
| Dallas, Sarah L. et al. “Dual Role for the Latent Transforming Growth Factor-β Binding Protein in Storage of Latent TGF-β in the Extracellular Matrix and as a Structural Matrix Protein,” Jour. of Cell Biol., 131(2): 539-549 (1995). |
| Edwards et al., “Osteoinduction of Human Demineralized Bone: Characterization in a Rat Model”, Clinical Orthopaedics & Rel. Res. 357:219-228, Dec. 1998. |
| Frenkel et al. “Use of Demineralized Bone Matrix Gel to Enhance Spine Fusion”, 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, Apr. 28-May 2, 1993, Birmingham, AL, p. 162. |
| Gazzerro, Elisabetta et al. “Bone Morphogenetic Proteins Induce the Expression of Noggin, Which Limits Their Activity in Cultured Rat Osteoblasts,” Jour. of Clin. Invest., 102(12): 2106-2114 (1998). |
| Gekko et al., “Mechanism of Protein Stabilization by Glycerol: Preferential Hydration in Glycerol-Water Mixtures”, vol. 20, No. 16, pp. 4667-5676 (1981). |
| Gepstein et al., “Bridging Large Defects in Bone by Demineralized Bone Matrix in the Form of a Powder”, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, vol. 69-A, No. 7, pp. 984-991, 1987. |
| Gher, Marlin E., et al., “Bone Grafting and Guided Bone Regeneration for Immediate Dental Implants in Humans”, J. Periodontology, 1994, 65:881-891. |
| Glowacki et al., “Application of Biological Principle of Induced Osteogenesis for Craniofacial Defects”, The Lancet, 1981, vol. 1, No. 8227, pp. 959-962. |
| Glowacki et al., “Fate of Mineralized and Demineralized Osseous Implants in Cranial Defects”, Calcified Tissue Int. 33: 71-76, 1981. |
| Glowacki et al., “Demineralized Bone Implants”, Symposium on Horizons in Plastic Surgery, vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 233-241, 1985. |
| Grafton™ Allogenic Bone Matrix (ABM), Advertising Brochure, Advanced Processing of Human Allograft Bone, Osteotech, Inc., 1992. |
| Groeneveld et al., “Mineralized Processes in Demineralized Bone Matrix Grafts in Human Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevations”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 393-402 (1999). |
| Habal et al., “Autologous Corticocancellous Bone Paste for Long Bone Discontinuity Defects: An Experimental Approach”, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Aug. 1985, vol. 15, No. 23, pp. 138-142. |
| Ito, Takayasu et al., “Sensitivity of Osteoinductive Activity of Demineralized and Defatted Rat Femur to Temperature and Furation of Heating”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 316, 1995, pp. 267-275. |
| Jurgensen, K., M.D. et al., “A New Biological Glue for Cartilage-Cartilage-Cartilage Interfaces: Tissue Transglutaminase”, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc., Feb. 1997, pp. 185-193. |
| Kaban et al., “Treatment of Jaw Defects with Demineralized Bone Implants”, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, pp. 623-626 (Jun. 6, 1998). |
| Kakiuchi et al., “Human Bone Matrix Gelatin as a Clinical Alloimplant”, International Orthopaedics, 9, pp. 181-188 (1985). |
| Kiviranta et al., “The Rate fo Calcium Extraction During EDTA Decalcification from Thin Bone Slices as Assessed with Atomic Absorption Spectrophometry”, Histochemistry 68, 1980, pp. 119-127. |
| Kubler, et al., “Allogenic bone and Cartilage Morphogenesis”, J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 19(7): 238-288, 1991. |
| Kubler, N.R. et al. “EHBMP-2: The first BMP-variant with osteoinductive properties,” Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir, 3(1): S134-S139 (1999). |
| Lewandrowski et al., “Flexural Rigidity in Partially Demineralized Diaphysical Bone Grafts,” Clin. Ortho. Rel. Res. 317: 254-262, 1995. |
| Lewandrowski et al., “Kinetics of Cortical Bone Demineralization: controlled demineralization—a new method for modifying cortical bone allografts,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 31:365-372, 1996. |
| McLaughlin et al., “Enhancements of Bone Ingrowth by the Use of Bone Matrix as a Biologic Cement”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 183, pp. 255-261 (Mar. 1984). |
| Meijer et al., Radiographic Evaluation of Mandibular Augmentation with Prefabricated Hydroxylapatite/Fibrin Glue Imlants, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 1997, pp. 138-145. |
| Mellonig, “Decalicified Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft as an Implant Material in Human Periodontal Defects”, The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, pp. 41-45, 1984. |
| Mellonig, James T. D.D.S., M.S., “Bone Allografts in Periodontal Therapy”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 324, Mar. 1996. |
| Mohan, S. “Insulin-Like Growth Factor Binding Proteins in Bone Cell Regulation,” Growth Regulation, 3(1): 67-70 (1993). |
| Mulliken, J.B. and Glowacki, “Induced Osteogenesis for Repair and Construction in the Craniofacial Region”, J. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, May 1980, p. 553-559. |
| Neigal et al., “Use of Demineralized Bone Implants in Orbital and Craniofacial”, Opthal. Plast. Reconstrs. Surg., 12: 108-120, 1996. |
| Paralkar, et al., PNAS, 100(11): 6736-6740, 2003. |
| Parma-Benfenati, S., et al., “Histologic Evaluation of New Attachment Utilizing a Titanium-Reinforced Barrier Membrane in a Nucogingival Recession Defect. A Case Report”, J. Periodontology, Jul. 1998. |
| Pedrozo, Hugo A. et al. “Growth Plate Chondrocytes Store Latent Transforming Growth Factor (TGF)-β1 in Their Matrix Through Latent TGF-β1 Binding Protein-1,” Jour. of Cellular Physiology, 177(2): 343-354 (1997). |
| Pedrozo, Hugo A. et al. “Vitamin D3 Metabolites Regulate LTBP1 and Latent TGF-β1 Expression and Latent TGF-β1 Incorporation in the Extracellular Matrix of Chohdrocytes,” Jour. of Cell. Biochem., 72(1): 151-165 (1999). |
| Perez, B.J. et al., “Mechanical properties of a discontinous random fiber composite for totally bioabsorbable fracture fixation devices”, Paper presented in : Bioengineering Conference, 1995, Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE 21st Annual Northeast, May 22-23, 1995, pp. 55-56. |
| Product literature for Bio-Gide®, Resorbable barrier membrane from OsteoHealth Co., Division of Luitpold Pharmaceutical, Inc. 1998. |
| Product literature for Gore Resolut XT, Bioabsorbable membrane from Gore Regenerative Technologies, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 1998. |
| Ray, Robert et al. “Bone Implants: Preliminary Report of an Experimental Study”, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, vol. 29A (5), Oct. 1957. |
| Reddi et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 69:1601-1605, 1972. |
| Reddi, A. Hari. “Interplay between bone morphogenetic proteins and cognate binding proteins in bone and cartilage development: noggin, chordin and DAN,” Arthritis Research, 3(1): 1-5 (2001). |
| Ruppert, Rainer et al. “Human bone morphogenetic protein 2 contains a heparin-binding site which modifies its biological activity,” Eur. J. Biochem, 237(1): 295-302 (1996). |
| Russell et al., Orthopaedics, 22(5):524-53, May 1, 1999. |
| Stairs, Robert A. “Calculation of surface tension of salt solutions: effective polarizability of solvated ions.” Can. J. Chem. 73: pp. 781-787 (1995). |
| Stevenson et al. “Long Bone Defect Healing Induced by a New Formulation of Rat Demineralized Bone Matrix Gel,” 40th Annual Meeting, Orthopedic Research Society, Feb. 21-24, 1994, New Orleans, LA, p. 205-35. |
| Stevenson et al., “Factors Affecting Bone Graft Incorporation”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 323, 1996, pp. 66-74. |
| Teparat, Thitiwan et al., “Clinical Comparison of Bioabsorbable Barriers With Non-Resorbable Barriers in Guided Tissue Regeneration in the Treatment of Human Intrabony Defects”, J. Periodontology, Jun. 1998. |
| The Term “Substantially”, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, at the web—http://www.m-w.com, p. 1, accessed on Jan. 8, 2007. |
| Todescan et al., “A Small Animal Model for Investigating Endosseous Dental Impants:Effect of Graft Materials on Healing of Endoss, Porous-Surfaced Implants Placed in a Fresh Extraction Socket”, The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 217-223, 1987. |
| Ueland et al., “Increased Cortical Bone Content of Insulin-Like Growth Factors in Acromegalic Patients”, J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 84(1): 123-127, 1999. |
| Urist et al. “Bone Formation in Implants of Partially and Wholly Demineralized Bone Matrix,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 71, pp. 271-278 (1970). |
| Urist, M.R. et al., “The Bone Induction Principle”, Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res. 53:243-283, 1967. |
| Urist, M.R., “Bone Formation by Autoinduction”, Science, 150(698):893-9,1965. |
| Whiteman et al., J. Hand. Surg. 18B:487, 1993. |
| Xiaobo et al., Orthop., No. 293, pp. 360-365, 1993. |
| Yamaguchi, Akira. “Recent advances in researches on bone formation —Role of BMP in bone formation,” Nihon Rinsyo, 56(6): 1406-1411 (1998). |
| Zhang, et al., “A Quantative Assessment of Osteoinductivity of Human Demineralized Bone Matrix”, J. Periodontol. 68(11): 1076-1084, 1997. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20140010891 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13010084 | Jan 2011 | US |
| Child | 14021179 | US | |
| Parent | 11951084 | Dec 2007 | US |
| Child | 13010084 | US | |
| Parent | 10433588 | US | |
| Child | 11951084 | US |
