Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 8, 2026
A Lab-On-A-Chip Platform for Stimulating Osteocyte Mechanotransduction and Analyzing Functional Outcomes of Bone Remodeling
Published on: May 21, 2020
Comparison of the osteogenic potential of bone dust and iliac bone chip
Shuai Ye1, Kyu-Bum Seo, Byung-Hyun Park
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Chonbuk National University Hospital-Biomedical Research Institute of Chonbuk National University Hospital, 634-18, Keumam-dong, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju 561-712, South Korea.
Background Context:
There is no comparative study of the in vitro and in vivo osteogenic potential of iliac bone chips (autogenous iliac cancellous bone chips) compared with bone dusts generated during the decortication process with a high-speed burr in spine fracture or fusion surgery.
Purpose:
To compare the osteogenic potential of three sizes of bone dusts with iliac bone chips and to determine whether bone dusts can be used as a bone graft substitute.
Study Design:
In vitro and in vivo study.
Methods:
Bone chips were harvested from the posterior superior iliac spine and bone dusts from the vertebrae of 15 patients who underwent spinal fracture surgery. Bone dust was divided into three groups: small (3 mm), middle (4 mm), and large (5 mm) according to the size of the burr tip. A comparison was made using a cell proliferation assay, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, the degree of mineralization in an in vitro model, and radiographic and histologic studies (the change of absorbable area and tissue density) after implantation of the various materials into back muscles of nude mice.
Results:
Although all three bone dust groups were less active with regard to cell proliferation, ALP activity, and the degree of mineralization, than were bone chips, they still exhibited osteogenic potential. Furthermore, there was no significant difference among the three bone dust groups. The three bone dust groups did show greater absorbable area and change of the tissue density than did the iliac bone chip group. Again, there was no significant difference among the three bone dust groups in this regard. Histologically, specimens from the bone dust groups had a higher osteoclast cell number than specimens from the iliac bone chip group.
Conclusions:
The osteogenic potential of bone dusts is lower than that of iliac bone chips, and the absorption speed of bone dusts in vivo is faster than that of iliac bone chips. The increased resorption speed appeared to result from an increase in osteoclast cell number. Therefore, caution needs to be used when surgeons employ bone dust as a bone graft substitute.
