Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Bioceramics. Is there a difference?

J E Lemons1

  • 1Department of Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama, Birmingham 35294.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
|December 1, 1990
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Effects of Particle Abrasion Media and Pressure on Flexural Strength and Bond Strength of Zirconia.

Operative dentistry·2022
Same author

Ceramics in orthopedic surgery.

Surgical technology international·2015
Same author

Bone properties surrounding hydroxyapatite-coated custom osseous integrated dental implants.

Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials·2010
Same author

Medical devices, health care, and consensus standards.

Standardization news : SN·2002
Same author

Strength analysis of Le Fort I osteotomy fixation: titanium versus resorbable plates.

Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons·2001
Same author

Analysis of Ti-6Al-4V implants placed with fibroblast growth factor 1 in rat tibiae.

The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants·2001
Same journal

Which Factors Are Associated With Death, Local Recurrence, and Perioperative Complications After En Bloc Resection for Primary Malignant Tumors of the Mobile Spine?

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

Impact Microindentation Evaluates Bone Strength, Bone Quality, and Fracture Susceptibility Across Skeletal Sites: A Cadaver Study.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

What Is the Effect of Robot Reduction in Displaced Pelvic Fractures? A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

CORR Insights®: Acute or Delayed TKA for Tibial Plateau Fracture? An Observational Study From the Swedish Arthroplasty Register.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Guest Editorial: Recalling a Recall.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

Radial Head Fractures Cluster in the Anterolateral and Anteromedial Quadrants and Do Not Correlate With Coronoid Fracture Types.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
See all related articles

Aluminum oxide and calcium phosphate bioceramics are vital in orthopedic surgery. Different types exhibit unique properties and tissue responses, highlighting their potential for expanded clinical use.

Area of Science:

  • Biomaterials Science
  • Orthopedic Surgery
  • Bioceramics

Background:

  • Bioceramics, including aluminum oxide and calcium phosphate, are extensively used in orthopedic applications.
  • Variations within bioceramic types exist based on source and intended use.
  • Each bioceramic possesses distinct physical, mechanical, chemical, and biological properties.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To inform the clinical community about the differences among bioceramic materials.
  • To highlight the specific tissue responses elicited by various bioceramics.
  • To underscore the potential for expanded clinical applications of these biomaterials.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of bioceramic properties.
  • Review of tissue response data for different bioceramic types.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Literature synthesis on aluminum oxide, hydroxylapatite, and tricalcium phosphate bioceramics.

    • Main Results:

    • Aluminum oxide and calcium phosphate bioceramics demonstrate significant differences in properties.
    • Distinct tissue responses are observed for hydroxylapatite and tricalcium phosphate bioceramics compared to aluminum oxide.
    • The specific characteristics of each bioceramic influence its suitability for orthopedic applications.

    Conclusions:

    • Understanding bioceramic variations is crucial for orthopedic surgeons.
    • Tailoring bioceramic selection to specific applications can optimize patient outcomes.
    • Further clinical adoption is anticipated due to the favorable properties and demonstrated efficacy of these materials.