Journal of Dental Implants

: 2020  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 59--71

The clinical outcome of bone cement in dental implant insertion – A systematic review

Mrugank Shah 
 Department of Post Graduate Education, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mrugank Shah
Flat No. 601, Maa Tulsi Vihar, Road No. 8. Daulat Nagar, Borivali (E), Mumbai - 400 066, Maharashtra


Introduction: To accelerate the process of restoring dental implants, achieving primary stability is of prime importance for effective osseointegration. The various bone substitute materials such as autograft (golden standard), allograft, xenograft, and alloplast are used to improve the stability of an implant and also as an aid in bone formation. The use of bone cements, among the alloplast material, is a relatively new premise in oral implantology. These have been extensively used in orthopedic surgery to secure an implanted prosthesis and to replace or bind bone fragments, resulting from trauma, and to fill cavities. This article aims to review the literature for the use of bone cements in oral implantology and evaluate its prospective use in future to secure dental implants. Materials and Methods: PubMed search was carried out using keywords such as “Bone Cements,” “Oral Implantology,” “Cements Fix Implants with Bone,” and “Cements to Grow Bone.” Of the 1422 articles, 1015 were selected after eliminating the duplicates. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 383 abstracts were assessed for relevance, of which 17 full-text articles were selected. Five articles were excluded with reasons and 12 eligible articles were included in the systematic review. Results: Eight studies out of the 12 concluded that bone cement could be a viable alternative to allogenic or other graft materials tested. Four articles were inconclusive or showed no significant difference. However, the quality of available evidence was poor as 10 out of the 12 studies were animal trials and 2 were in vitro studies. Due to considerable heterogeneity of data, meta-analysis could not be done. Conclusion: Bone cements can be considered a possible alternative to the existing graft materials. However, further research including controlled trials with human subjects needs to be undertaken to establish its potential.

How to cite this article:
Shah M. The clinical outcome of bone cement in dental implant insertion – A systematic review.J Dent Implant 2020;10:59-71

How to cite this URL:
Shah M. The clinical outcome of bone cement in dental implant insertion – A systematic review. J Dent Implant [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 20 ];10:59-71
Available from:

Full Text


Dental implants are extensively used in clinical practice for restoration of lost teeth and maxillofacial defects. Dental implants help restore the form, function, and esthetic of natural teeth and soft tissue. Since the introduction of osseointegration and dental implants protocols by Branemark et al.,[1] clinicians have attempted to expedite the treatment time and provide functional artificial teeth which would last for longer duration of time. The original protocol used to be to wait for 12 months from extraction to restoration of implant with final crown. The original protocol involved healing of extraction site, placement of two-stage submerged implant, and then restoration of implant after 3–6 months of healing period. This protocol has been modified over the last few years to single-stage placement. In recent time, even immediate placement in extraction socket with immediate loading has been successfully advocated. This concept is appealing because it reduces surgical procedure and time required prior to final restoration. Immediate extraction and immediate implantation with immediate function reduces discomfort of multiple surgeries and multiple visits and results in enhanced patient satisfaction.

Multiple studies have shown primary stability to be the prerequisite for successful osseointegration of dental implants.[2] Primary stability is typically defined as the stability of an implant immediate after its placement.[3] Implants with no primary stability or spinning implants can become surrounded by fibrous encapsulation and fail to osseointegrate.[4] Hence, good primary stability is considered an important predictor for successful osseointegration. The amount of primary stability attained is influenced by various factors, including the bone quantity and quality, implant surface characteristics, implant geometry, operator skills, and surgical technique.[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] Achieving good primary stability is a great challenge [Figure 1][12] in patients with poor quantity and quality of alveolar bone and some diseases such as osteoporosis.[13] Placement of dental implants in atrophic maxilla and mandible is difficult because of less height and width, hence existence of sufficient bone volume is significantly important for dental implant placement.[14] Currently, united efforts are focusing on augmenting and accelerating bone formation around orthopedic and dental implants through the implantation of different bone substitutes/grafts and/or by altering the implant surface with osteoinductive coatings, with a vision of improving and expediting the formation of mechanical stability (primary stability).[15],[16]{Figure 1}

It is now well acknowledged that implants with appropriate surface topography and chemistry are in a huge demand for increasing cell growth, attachment, and tissue formation, and the administration of suitable structural materials at dental implant defects should eventually amplify the osseointegration process of dental implants for their immediate loading and lasting success.[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24]

Ideal grafting materials should be biocompatible, and possess osteogenic, osteoconductive, and osteoinductive properties.[25],[26],[27],[28] So far, a number of grafting materials such as autografts, allografts, xenografts, and alloplastic bone substitutes have all been exercised to provide structural base of osseous tissue to provide better foundation for dental implants.[16],[29] Autografts are considered golden standards in implant and reconstructive surgery because they maximally match the above requirements. Autogenous bone has its own drawbacks because of its limited supply, unpredictability, and donor site morbidity. In addition, autografts require additional surgery from oral cavity or iliac crest at a secondary site far from the surgical site, which makes initial surgery more complex.[30],[31] Therefore, a considerable variety of biocompatible and suitable bone substitutes have been developed and proposed for augmenting/inducing bone regeneration.[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39] While these can work as substrate alternatives, the disadvantage, especially lack of osteoinductivity, has seriously restricted their clinical applications in implant dentistry.[16],[29],[30] Allografts are considered good alternative because of large volume of available material, which can be used under local anesthesia only. Still, allograft needs a prolonged period for bone regeneration, and the danger of infection and rejection may be higher.[40] Hence, xenogeneic bone grafts, which are easier to handle, have been engaged using biomaterials such as animal bone or coral tissue.[41],[42] On the contrary, the use of allograft and xenograft is limited because of the risks of evoking an immune response and by the prospective induction of transmissible diseases.

Another possibility lies in utilizing synthetic biomaterials (alloplast), which may be simple to produce and injectable.[43],[44] An ideal alloplast, which is derived synthetically for peri-implant grafting, has not been identified. Immediate placement of implants after extraction of a large molar is a challenge. Concerted efforts are made to accelerate the process of implant therapy by choosing a graft material that is biocompatible and can predictably secure the implant immediately by bonding to both implant and bone. And it should also have the properties of rapid resorption and complete replacement by bone.[45]

Among the synthetic alloplast materials, tricalcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite (HA), and a calcium phosphate (CaP) compound such as CaP cement (CPC) have excellent osteoconductivity and biocompatibility.[46],[47],[48],[49] CPC grafting materials have benefits such as biocompatibility, controlling biological absorption ability, fabrication into functional shapes, and easy to process.[50] Porous CPC alone as an alloplastic grafting material has been extensively used, including a maxillofacial reconstruction, alveolar ridge augmentation, and cranial defect reparation.[28],[51],[52]

Artificial joints are fixed with bone cements. In 1958, Dr. John Charnley[53] first started to use self-curing poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) cement in total hip replacement and succeeded in anchoring femoral head prostheses in the femur. Since this major breakthrough, to date, PMMA-based acrylic bone cement (ABC) is the most popular bone cement. Moreover, in the early 1980s, Brown and Chow first invented the category of biodegradable bone cements, knows as CPCs.[54] These cements form a very important zone by filling the free space between the bone and the prosthesis. Due to their optimal rigidity, cements can evenly cushion the forces working against the bone. The close connection between the bone and the cement as well as the cement and the prosthesis leads to an excellent distribution of the stresses and interface strain energy. The transmission of the forces bone to implant and implant to bone is the primary function of the bone cement.[55] In fact, “cement” is a misnomer on the grounds that the term cement is used to represent a substance that bonds two things together. Bone cements have no inherent adhesive properties, but instead, they depend on the close mechanical interlock between the prosthesis and irregular bone surface.[56] Functions of bone cements can be described briefly in order as fixation of artificial joints, anchoring of the implant to the bone, load transfer from the prosthesis to the bone, optimal stress/strain distribution, and release of antibiotics.[55] Better understanding of alternative alloplast material such as bone cements and its use in oral implantology might help reduce treatment time and patient discomfort.

In this article, we aim to summarize the bone cements that are currently available in the market and have been used in orthopedics to bond the bone and implant, thus aiding in increasing primary stability and providing stable osseous base to load them immediately. This has reportedly reduced patient treatment time and discomfort. Furthermore, we aim to review the research carried out in this field to assess the scope of bone cements in the clinical practice of oral implantology. We have also attempted to discuss the future perspectives on the development of bone cements for use in oral implantology.

 Materials and Methods

Objective of the study

The main objective of this study was:

To understand the use of bone cements to increase the primary and/or secondary stability of dental implants, which might help reduce treatment time and patient discomfortTo review the research done on the use of bone cements in the placement of dental implants.

Study procedure [Figure 2]{Figure 2}

Search strategy

A Medline (PubMed) search was performed for studies published in scientific journals from January 2003 up to September 2015. The search was limited to English language publications.

Search terms

The following search terms of “Cements alternative for Bone Grafting,” “Bone Cements Dental Implants,” “Cements Fix Implants with Bone,” “Cements to Grow Bone,” “Bone Cements Grow Bone,” “Dental Implants Bone Cements,” “Light Cured Bone Cements,” “Advanced Bone Cements,” “Advanced Bone Cements Dental Implants,” “Dental Implants Bone Cements” along with Boolean operators “and,” “or” were used.

Thereafter, the search results from the subject (two subject groups) were combined with each other using the Citavi 5 (Swiss Academic Software GmBH) version Wädenswil, Switzerland, and duplicates were removed.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

The following journals were included:

Bone cements journalBio-medical and tissue engineering journalsJournal of BiomechanicsOrthopedic journals.

All the animal and human studies with research on bone cements were included in this review.

Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria were:

Case seriesCase reportReports based on patient chart reviews, questionnaires, or interviewsPapers considering endodontic cements and restorative cementsPapers published before 2003Letters to the editor or editorials.

Data extraction

A data extraction sheet as an Excel Table [Table 1] was used to extract the relevant data from the included publications. The following criteria were recorded:{Table 1}

AuthorTitle of studyType of study/study designYear of publicationMean follow-up timeReason/conclusion.


Search results

A PubMed search using keywords mentioned above was done. Articles were searched on September 15, 2015, and the following results were obtained pertaining to each keyword:

Cements alternative for Bone Grafting – 62Bone Cements Dental Implants – 272Cements Fix Implants with Bone – 10Cements to Grow Bone – 33Bone Cements Grow Bone – 32Dental Implants Bone Cements – 280Light Cured Bone Cements – 112Advanced Bone Cements – 265Advanced Bone Cements Dental Implants – 6Dental Implants Bone Cements – 350

Results from the above search terms were imported through Citavi 5 version (Swiss Academic Software GmBH) into excel, and duplicates were removed. A total of 1015 articles were obtained and tabulated in an excel sheet. After initial screening of titles of all the 1015 articles, 383 articles were obtained after eliminating all the duplicates. A total of 383 abstracts were screened to obtain 17 articles pertaining to bone cements. Five studies were excluded after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The following are the reasons for exclusion:

Studies could not be accessed – 01Articles describing biomaterial and manufacturing technique – 02No detailed information on bone cements and articles describing implant surfaces – 02.

In this review, the only one human study obtained could not be accessed through electronic database search.

Date of publication

The 17 studies were published in between the years 2003 and 2015.

Type of study

From the selected 12 studies, eight (Zou et al., 2012; E. M Ooms et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2010; Shelke et al., 2013; Lin Dan-Jae et al., 2011; Baier et al., 2013; Winge et al., 2011; Baier et al., 2013; and Arisan et al., 2010) (66.66%) studies were prospective animal studies, one (Seong et al., 2011) (8.33%) study was an animal study/ex vivo, one (Seung-Yun Shin et al., 2014) (8.33%) study was an animal study/in vitro, and two (Vayron et al., 2013 and Smeets et al., 2010) (16.66%) studies were of in vitro study design.

Type of bone cement

In this review, eight (66.66%) articles (Zou et al., 2012; E. M Ooms et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2010; Seung-Yun Shin et al., 2014; Seong et al., 2011; Shelke et al., 2013; Lin Dan-Jae et al., 2011; and Baier et al., 2013) out of the 12 do support the hypothesis for the use of bone cements to stabilize dental implants.

Out of the 12 (100%) studies which were included in the review, eight (Zou et al., 2012; E. M Ooms et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2010; Seung-Yun Shin et al., 2014; Lin Dan-Jae et al., 2011; Winge et al., 2011; Baier et al., 2013; and Arisan et al., 2010) (66.66%) articles discussed about CaP-based CPC, one (Shelke et al., 2013) (8.33%) article on magnesium phosphate cement (MPC), one (Vayron et al., 2013) (8.33%) article on tricalcium silicate-based cement (TSBC), one (Smeets et al., 2010) (8.33%) article on PMMA-ABC, and one article (Seong et al., 2011) (8.33%) on specially developed dental implant bone cement (DIBC).

Calcium phosphate cement

Mode of use of calcium phosphate cement

Out of the eight studies which discussed CPC, two (Zou et al., 2012, and Wang et al., 2010) (25%) studies describe CPC/BMSC (bone marrow stromal cells) composite, two (Winge et al., 2011, and Arisan et al., 2010) (25%) articles describe the use of injectable CaP cement (ICAP), and one article (Baier et al., 2013) (12.5%) describes the addition of strontium bioactive mineral to CPC, whereas others (E. M Ooms et al., 2003; Seung-Yun Shin et al., 2014; and Lin Dan-Jae et al., 2011) (37.5%) debate on various CPCs.

Additives to calcium phosphate cement

Three (Zou et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2010; and Baier et al., 2013) (36, 5%) studies out of the eight studies describe the incorporation of growth factors and bioactive minerals to CPCs. Two articles (Wang et al., 2010, and Seung-Yun Shin et al., 2014) describe the repair of circumferential bone defect around dental implants.

Resorbable versus nonresorbable bone cement

Out of the total five (ABC, CPC, MPC, DIBC, and TSBC) different types of cements described in this review, two cements (ABC and DIBC) are nonresorbable and three (CPC, MPC, and TSBC) are resorbable.

In two of the studies (Zou et al., 2012, and Lin Dan-Jae et al., 2011), autologous bone has been compared with CPC.

Type of procedure

Eight articles (Zou et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2010; Vayron et al., 2013; Smeets et al., 2010; Seung-Yun Shin et al., 2014; Seong et al., 2011; Shelke et al., 2013; and Arisan et al., 2010) (66.66%) out of the 12 describe bone cements and their potential use with benefits and limitation in oral cavity (oral and maxillofacial surgeries), whereas other three (E. M Ooms et al., 2003; Lin Dan-Jae et al., 2011; Winge et al., 2011; and Baier et al. 2013) (33.33%) articles discuss bone cements and their potential implications in orthopedic surgery.

Effect of bone cements

Out of the above 12 articles reviewed, eight articles (Zou et al., 2012; E. M Ooms et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2010; Seung-Yun Shin et al., 2014; Seong et al., 2011; Shelke et al., 2013; Lin Dan-Jae et al., 2011; and Baier et al., 2013) (66.66%) support the use of bone cements in increasing the primary and/or secondary stability of dental implants along with better quality and/or quantity of bone around dental implants, one article (Arisan et al., 2010) (8.33%) did not show any significant benefit for the use of bone cement, and the remaining three (Vayron et al., 2013; Smeets et al., 2010; and Winge et al., 2011) (25%) articles were inconclusive.

Assessment of outcome measures

Of the 12 studies assessed for the use of bone cements in the oral cavity, three (Zou et al., 2012; Shelke et al., 2013; and Lin Dan-Jae et al., 2011) (25%) studies measured the bone-to-implant contact (BIC), two (Seong et al., 2011, and Arisan et al., 2010) (16.66%) studies described bone–cement–implant–interface, one (Wang et al., 2010) (8.33%) study evaluated the mineral apposition rate (MAR), one (Smeets et al., 2010) (8.33%) study emphasized about increase in bond strength, and one (Seung-Yun Shin et al., 2014) (8.33%) study assessed the implant stability quotient (ISQ). The remaining articles describe the cortical bone response and fatigue stresses and assess the osseointegration and biomechanical effects of bone cements (E. M Ooms et al., 2003; Baier et al., 2013; Vayron et al., 2013; and Winge et al., 2011).


Various bone cements are available in the market; among them, PMMA-based ABCs and CaP-based CPC are the two most commonly used cements. Eight out of 12[3],[45],[12],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61] articles support the use of bone cement in stabilizing the implant in extraction sockets, improving primary or secondary stability, and forming better quality of bone around the dental implants after maxillary sinus lifts. Out of the eight articles which support the hypothesis, none of them have discussed the use of ABC even though it is the most popular bone cement in orthopedic surgery. ABC is used for anchorage of implants in orthopedic surgeries (i.e., total knee arthroplasty, total hip replacement) and bone defect filling because of its favorable properties such as bio-inertness, simple handling, significant mechanical strength, and economical.[62] The major reason for the limited application of ABC in the oral environment can be attributed to its nonbiodegradability, tissue necrosis resulting from the exothermic setting reaction, monomer toxicity, lack of bonding (except for mechanical interlocking), degradation of fragments causing irritation and inflammation, and leakage of monomer.[63]

Out of the eight articles which found results supporting the use of bone cements, six articles used CaP-based CPC. The major reasons for CPCs' wide uses in oral environment are their unique combination of osteoconductivity, bioactivity (capacity to directly bond to bone, thus establishing a uniquely strong interface), biodegradability, injectability, nonexothermic setting, moldability, and negligible shrinkage.[62] In addition, CaPs do not cause an antigenic response in the body and can be easily customized to its intended application.[64] Two articles[65],[66] out of the eight articles which used CPC in the review did not show results favoring bone cements, and both the studies have used ICAP. This could be attributed to the relatively low flexural strength of bone cement used and very dense recipient bone area used in one of the studies,[65] whereas the other study[66] using injectable CaP cement found no significant radiological or biomechanical difference between avascularized corticocancellous bone, vascularized corticocancellous bone, and avascular cortical bone groups. However, their results were favoring the use of CaP bone cement to mechanically stabilize the cortical bone fragments and as a possible alternative to autologous bone grafting. Other major limitation of injectable CaP cement could be the “washout” effect experienced in the area with excessive blood flow.[67]

Out of the two studies[3],[59] describing the repair of circumferential bone defects around dental implants one[59] used bioengineered CPC composite whereas the other study[3] used CPC. Shin et al.[3] showed that the use of CPC grafting improves the initial stability of an implant with insufficient cortical bone. The ISQ values increased drastically after the use of CPC, as the depth of defect increased, suggesting its clinical use to rescue implants placed in maxillary posterior jaw locations with poor bone quality and iatrogenic oversized osteotomy. Another study by Lin et al.[59] also confirms the hypothesis for the use of CPC to reinforce the implant fixation process and facilitate early osseointegration than the autograft. Histological evaluation of CPC has found it to be biocompatible, osteoconductive, as well as osteotransductive in contrast to PMMA-ABC, which becomes surrounded by a fibrous encapsulation.

On the other side, CPC lacks sufficient osteoinductivity (i.e., does not have the capability to form a new bone in nonskeletal intramuscular or subcutaneous sites), and a mixture of growth factors can alter the osteoinductive properties of CaP materials, hence promoting bone repair and formation.[68],[69],[70] It is widely accepted that in the regeneration of lost bone and periodontal tissues, growth factors play a vital role in the complex cascade of tissue regeneration process.[71] To overcome this problem, two studies[58],[59] out of six studies which support the hypothesis for the use of bone cements have used BMSC as an osteogenic growth factor. The second study[59] additionally uses bone morphogenic protein-2 (BMP-2) (potent osteoinductive activity) and fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) (potent mitogen for fibroblasts and other mesoderm-derived cells) to overcome the shortcomings of any one single factor. Both these studies suggest that CPC could be an acceptable alternative carrier for biocompatible, artificial cell-seeded constructs. Addition of BMP-2 and bFGF shows a synergistic effect because of which they show best results compared to BMSC + CPC together which gave better results than CPC alone or autologous bone. Addition of various bioactive ions, such as magnesium, strontium, magnesium, copper, zinc, and fluoride, may further promote the biological performance of CPCs by improving bone metabolism.[72] Addition of strontium to CPC has shown to improve local bone formation in a study by Baier et al.,[60] which improves the fixation ability of CPC grafting material in osteoporotic bone.

The major advantage of CaP-based bone cements is its handling properties in comparison to particulate bone substitutes/graft materials which are widely used in market. Majority of the published research on grafting material in oral implantology focuses on the use of granular structure with no cohesive potential. The major limitation of the use of granules is that it needs to be stabilized with membranes or grafted in sites with no biomechanical stresses. Stresses may induce micromovements between the particles and induce ingrowth of connective tissue (which may explain the substandard success rate of guided bone regeneration technique), whereas CPC can be directly grafted and once set, does not require membrane to stabilize the cement.

Appropriate CaPs with suitable geometry, architecture, and distinctive porosity may stimulate the development of HA layer at the bone–implant junction, which leads to the formation of matrix by attracting protein, to which cells attach, multiply, and differentiate and later biomineralize or develop into new bone.[21],[73],[74] This ability of CPCs to form new bone has led to diverse applications, varying from graftings to coatings, in implantology.[21],[74],[68],[69],[70],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81]

Two cements out of the total five different cements included in this review, which support the hypothesis, are MPC and DIBC. MPC is also a biodegradable bone cement. MPC may act as bioactive bone cement due to the release of magnesium ions, which improve the activity of osteoblasts. Sehlke et al.[45] tried stabilizing dental implant in large molar site using magnesium-based bone cement such as OsteoCrete (Bone Solutions Inc., Colleyville, Texas, USA) which helps clinically in reducing an additional surgical procedure and the time needed prior to final restoration. One of the most significant observations made during the study was that cement surface, when exposed to oral environment, became discolored and began to soften and diffuse because of consistent exposure to bacterial contaminants and saliva. MPC used in this study had a nonporous surface compared to CPC, which prohibited the ingrowth of new vasculature and bone and arrested the perfusion of blood through the cement. A similar study by Lew et al., 2010, reported the use of HA cement (HAC, BoneSource Howmedica Leibinger, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA – similar to CaP cement) to support the dental implant in large extraction molar site.[64] The study concluded that HAC could be effective in the oral environment for small defects (<25 mm[2]), such as jumping gap filler for dental implants or extraction, site where conserving alveolar ridge height is important.

DIBC is a special cement developed by The University of Minnesota Bio-Engineering Lab, which is nonresorbable, biocompatible, fast setting, and can be loaded.[12] It reportedly stays inert in situ. DIBC can be used to stabilize implant that can withstand occlusal forces, and its advantages are that it does not require any additional bone removal or replacement. In addition, DIBC can be used to treat failing dental implants that show signs of infection from peri-implantitis along with advanced bone loss[12] [Figure 3].{Figure 3}

Secondary implant stability improved considerably after the use of DIBC. However, the mechanical properties plateaued at 1 week for bone–cement–implant interfaces with minimal changes over the successive 12 weeks, whereas the bone–implant interface improved progressively. Histologic examination and scanning electron microscope (SEM) showed that cement had established tight mechanical interlocking, hence making an adhesive failure between implant and cement and cement and bony trabeculae very difficult. In comparison to CPC, which is resorbable, DIBC is a nonresorbable material. This property of DIBC can be used to a benefit, by using it to rescue hopelessly mobile implants in posterior maxillae of elderly or medically compromised patien, however, long-term results need to be further investigated.

Last group of cements, which have been described in this review, are TSBCs such as Biodentine[82],[83] that have been used in restorative and endodontic procedures for the replacement of dentinal tissue[84] in clinical practice, which could be potentially used as bone substitutes for dental implants. The mechanical properties of Biodentine have been well established,[85],[86] along with its bioactive properties[87],[88],[82],[83] and biocompatibility.[89],[90] Biodentine requires only 9–12 min of manipulation, making its clinical use relatively easy.[86] Furthermore, TSBCs are suitable to be used as bone substitute materials because of their adhesive properties with calcified tissues of teeth.[91] These increase with time because of their chemical composition.[92] Apart from these properties, bone substitutes must also have fatigue behavior in order to reduce the mechanical stresses produced by dental implants. Vayron et al.[74] had described in an experimental setup, the use of Biodentine as a bone substitute material for implant stabilization. An ultrasonic device was used to supervise the changes of the ultrasonic response of a dental implant embedded in Biodentine and administered to mechanical fatigue, which was found to be effective. However, no supporting evidence has been found for the use of TSBCs for stabilizing implants.

Various parameters assessed to evaluate the outcome measures for the use of bone cements are BIC, MAR, ISQ, bone–cement–implant interface, the bond strength, the cortical bone response, fatigue stresses, which assessed the osseointegration and biomechanical effects of bone cements. Of these parameters, the ones which clearly help define the significance for the use of bone cements are increase in ISQ, better MAR, and good BIC similar to good bone–cement–implant interface. Of the above-mentioned parameters, the one which is of clinical significance is increase in ISQ value showing improvement in the stability of implants, whereas the others require histological and microscopic evaluation and are important from research point of view.

One of the major limitations of this study in terms of its generalizability is that all the studies included are in vitro studies, which represent a relatively poor quality of evidence as the behavior of human teeth inside a functioning oral cavity within a unique specialized periodontium is different from the behavior of teeth under standardized in vitro experimental conditions (Al Ansary et al., 2009).[93] Furthermore, the studies considered were animal trials or in vitro studies, which represent the low level of evidence.

Due to the lack of controlled trials in humans or in vivo studies, it is difficult to extrapolate these results in the clinical scenario. In addition, a considerable variation was seen among the studies in terms of outcome measures or variables considered, methodology in terms of assessment of properties, and also the type of cements used in various studies. Owing to this heterogeneity, meta-analyses could not be done.

The limitations of this review are that articles from nonindexed journals could not be included. Other online databases apart from PubMed such as Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar have not been searched. Articles which were not available online have not been included in this review, which could have yielded more relevant studies. Few significant articles could have been overlooked as hand search of bibliographies and references of the most recent articles and publications could not be done. The study would have yielded in more comprehensive search results and better data to compare if the time frame could have been extended from 1995 to 2015 along with more search terms with specific cements used in oral implantology, for example, CPC and oral implantology, acrylic bone cement, and oral implantology. The study would have gained weightage if multiple reviewers could be involved, thus catering to inter-examiner variability or agreement.


Bone cements can be used to increase the primary and/or secondary stability of dental implants in oral cavity. However, out of the available bone cements, CaP-based CPC seems to be the most appropriate choice for clinical application because of its similar composition to bone. ABC is neither biodegradable nor osteoconductive. This severely limits its application in the field of oral implantology. On the other hand, CaP-based biomaterials such as CPC due to their high osteconductivity and self-hardening and suitable mechanical properties have the potential to be used as an alternative to regular bone substitutes/grafts. In addition, they can be used as scaffolds in tissue engineering for bone regeneration. Bone cements have the potential to completely replace autografts (no need for secondary surgical site) and also reduce the risk of eliciting an immune response and the potential risk of transmissible diseases as in allograft or xenograft.[58] However, despite extensive research in the field over the past years, these efforts have been considerably unfocused, limiting the clinical application of CaP-based biomaterials.[94] The clinical application of CPCs for dental and intraoral applications has been particularly sparse. To enable optimal clinical use of bone cements in implant dentistry, the material characteristics and requirements for a specific clinical use (e.g., grafting or coating) should be first evaluated and well understood. Development of “ready-to-use” CPCs and optimizing their drug delivery along with bioactive molecules is also equally important. Nonetheless, the use of CPC should be limited to appropriate/indicated clinical applications only.[96]

Considering the advances in the past years, CPC and its analogs certainly have the potential to replace the currently available autograft materials in implant dentistry.

Bone cements can be considered a viable option for bone grafting and regeneration of bone. Furthermore, bone cements may be relatively economical compared to allografts and xenografts, owing to complex manufacturing and sterilization protocols involved in their fabrication. A review of various bone cements and literature supports the use of bone cements to fix the implant with bone and load them relatively faster, thus reducing patient discomfort and treatment time. However, further prospective clinical trials involving human subjects is needed to establish its clinical effectiveness.


Recommendations for clinical research are as follows:

Identifying the most suitable bone cement from commercially available bone cements with desirable biomechanical properties similar to alveolar boneIn vitro testing of their mechanical and dissolution properties in oral environmentAnimal trials followed by clinical trials for the use of bone cements in stabilizing dental implants in large extraction site and direct sinus lift with immediate loadingLong-term follow-up of bone cements including human participantsComparing regular grafting material with CPC bone cements in split-mouth design in direct sinus lift procedure

Recommendations for clinical use

Use CPC to stabilize dental implant in immediate extraction case and load them immediately in the posterior molar area


Bone cements have the potential to provide mechanical stability to dental implants during the healing phase while the natural bone is formed around implants. This may be due to active or passive absorption, thus reducing the need for an additional surgery and healing time. Among the commercially available bone cements, CaP-based CPCs seem to be most suitable cements for clinical application in implant dentistry. Use of bone cements, if supported with suitable evidence, would reduce the risk of transmissible disease (in comparison to allograft and xenograft), improve patient comfort (avoid secondary surgery for autograft), reduce treatment cost, reduce treatment time, and might act as local drug delivery system. However, prospective controlled trials in human subjects need to be conducted in order to establish its clinical effectiveness. Research based on similar objective parameters will be needed for drawing definitive conclusions.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-yr study period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977;16:1-132.
2Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: Clinical significance. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:95-105.
3Shin SY, Shin S 2nd, Kye SB, Bone cement grafting increases implant primary stability in circumferential cortical bone defects. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2015;45:30-5.
4Lioubavina-Hack N, Lang NP, Karring T. Significance of primary stability for osseointegration of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:244-50.
5Bayarchimeg D, Namgoong H, Kim BK, Kim MD, Kim S, Kim TI, et al. Evaluation of the correlation between insertion torque and primary stability of dental implants using a block bone test. J Period Implant Sci 2013;43:30-6.
6Hong J, Lim YJ, Park SO. Quantitative biomechanical analysis of the influence of the cortical bone and implant length on primary stability. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1193-7.
7Javed F, Almas K. Osseointegration of dental implants in patients undergoing bisphosphonate treatment: A literature review. J Periodontol 2010;81:479-84.
8Javed F, Romanos GE. Impact of diabetes mellitus and glycemic control on the osseointegration of dental implants: A systematic literature review. J Periodontol 2009;80:1719-30.
9Rozé J, Babu S, Saffarzadeh A, Gayet-Delacroix M, Hoornaert A, Layrolle P. Correlating implant stability to bone structure. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1140-5.
10Tabassum A, Meijer GJ, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Influence of the surgical technique and surface roughness on the primary stability of an implant in artificial bone with a density equivalent to maxillary bone: A laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:327-32.
11Tabassum A, Meijer GJ, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Influence of surgical technique and surface roughness on the primary stability of an implant in artificial bone with different cortical thickness: A laboratory of spinal reconstructive surgery. Biomaterials 2009;30:5086-93.
12Seong WJ, Kim HC, Jeong S, DeVeau DL, Aparicio C, Li Y, et al. Ex vivo mechanical properties of dental implant bone cement used to rescue initially unstable dental implants: A rabbit study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:826-36.
13Gaetti-Jardim EC, Santiago-Junior JF, Goiato MC, Pellizer EP, Magro-Filho O, Jardim Junior EG. Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: A clinical reality? J Craniofac Surg 2011;22:1111-3.
14Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24 Suppl:237-59.
15Liu Y, de Groot K, Hunziker EB. Osteoinductive implants: The mise-en-sce'ne for drug-bearing biomimetic coatings. Ann Biomed Eng 2004;32:398-406.
16Hallman M, Thor A. Bone substitutes and growth factors as an alternative/complement to autogenous bone for grafting in implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000 2008;47:172-92.
17Liu X, Chub PK, Ding C. Surface modification of titanium, titanium alloys and related materials for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng Rep 2004;47:49-121.
18Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. A 5 year follow-up comparative analysis of the efficacy of various osseointegrated dental implant systems: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:557-68.
19Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The efficacy of various bone augmentation procedures for dental implants: A Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:696-710.
20Zhang Y, Song J, Shi B, Wang Y, Chen X, Huang C, et al. Combination of scaffold and adenovirus vectors expressing bone morphogenetic protein-7 for alveolar bone regeneration at dental implant defects. Biomaterials 2007;28:4635-42.
21Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 2007;23:844-54.
22Clark PA, Moioli EK, Sumner DR, Mao JJ. Porous implants as drug delivery vehicles to augment host tissue integration. FASEB J 2008;22:1684-93.
23de Jonge LT, Leeuwenburgh SC, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Organic-inorganic surface modifications for titanium implant surfaces. Pharm Res. 2008;25:2357-69.
24Paital SR, Dahotre NB. Calcium phosphate coatings for bioimplant applications: Materials, performance factors, and methodologies. Mater Sci Eng R 2009;66:1-70.
25Palma VC, Magro-Filho O, de Oliveria JA, Lundgren S, Salata LA, Sennerby L. Bone reformation and implant integration following maxillary sinus membrane elevation: An experimental study in primates. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006;8:11.
26Burg KJ, Porter S, Kellam JF. Biomaterial developments for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2000;21:2347-59.
27Bidic SM, Calvert JW, Marra K, Kumta P, Campbell P, Mitchell R, et al. Rabbit calvarial wound healing by means of seeded Caprotite scaffolds. J Dent Res 2003;82:131-5.
28Cavalcanti SC, Pereira CL, Mazzonetto R, de Moraes M, Moreira RW. Histological and histomorphometric analyses of calcium phosphate cement in rabbit calvaria. JCraniomaxillofac Surg 2008;36:354.
29Aghaloo TL, Moy PK. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22 Suppl:49-70.
30Chen FM, Jin Y. Periodontal tissue engineering and regeneration: Current approaches and expanding opportunities. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010;16:219-55.
31Hanes PJ. Bone replacement grafts for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2007;19:499-512, vi.
32Le Nihouannen D, Daculsi G, Saffarzadeh A, Gauthier O, Delplace S, Pilet P, et al. Ectopic bone formation by microporous calcium phosphate ceramic particles in sheep muscles. Bone 2005;36:1086-93.
33Le Nihouannen D, Guehennec LL, Rouillon T, Pilet P, Bilban M, Layrolle P, et al. Micro-architecture of calcium phosphate granules and fibrin glue composites for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2006;27:2716-22.
34Le Nihouannen D, Saffarzadeh A, Gauthier O, Moreau F, Pilet P, Spaethe R, et al. Bone tissue formation in sheep muscles induced by a biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic and fibrin glue composite. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008;19:667-75.
35Saldaña L, Sánchez-Salcedo S, Izquierdo-Barba I, Bensiamar F, Munuera L, Vallet-Regí M, et al. Calcium phosphate-based particles influence osteogenic maturation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Acta Biomater 2009;5:1294-305.
36Ergun C, Liu H, Webster TJ. Osteoblast adhesion on novel machinable calcium phosphate/lanthanum phosphate composites for orthopedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res A 2009;89:727-33.
37Lee SB, Jung UW, Choi Y, Jamiyandorj O, Kim CS, Lee YK, et al. Investigation of bone formation using calcium phosphate glass cement in beagle dogs. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2010;40:125-31.
38Cheng L, Ye F, Yang R, Lu X, Shi Y, Li L, et al. Osteoinduction of hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate bioceramics in mice with a fractured fibula. Acta Biomater 2010;6:1569-74.
39Jegoux F, Aguado E, Cognet R, Malard O, Moreau F, Daculsi G, et al. Alveolar ridge augmentation in irradiated rabbit mandibles. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010;93:1519-26.
40Jones KS. Assays on the influence of biomaterials on allogeneic rejection in tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2008;14:407-17.
41Eppley BL, Dadvand B. Injectable soft-tissue fillers: Clinical overview. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:98e-106e.
42Simion M, Fontana F. Autogenous and xenogeneic bone grafts for the bone regeneration. A literature review. Minerva Stomatol 2004;53:191-206.
43Shigeishi H, Takechi M, Nishimura M, Takamoto M, Minami M, Ohta K, et al. Clinical evaluation of novel interconnected porous hydroxyapatite ceramics (IP-CHA) in a maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedure. Dent Materials J 2012;31:54-60.
44Gauthier O, Boix D, Grimandi G, Aguado E, Bouler JM, Weiss P, et al. A new injectable calcium phosphate biomaterial for immediate bone filling of extraction sockets: A preliminary study in dogs. J Periodontol 1999;70:375-83.
45Sehlke BM, Wilson TG, Jones AA, Yamashita Y, Cochran V. The use of magnesium-based bone cement to secure immediate dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:e357-67.
46Haas R, Baron M, Zechner W, Mailath-Pokorny G. Porous hydroxyapatite for grafting the maxillary sinus in sheep: Comparative pullout study of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:691-6.
47Zerbo IR, Bronckers AL, de Lange G, Burger EH. Localisation of osteogenic and osteoclastic cells in porous beta-tricalcium phosphate particles used for human maxillary sinus floor elevation. Biomaterials 2005;26:1445-51.
48Bodde EW, Cammaert CT, Wolke JG, Spauwen PH, Jansen JA. Investigation as to the osteoinductivity of macroporous calcium phosphate cement in goats. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007;83:161-8.
49Sinikovic B, Kramer FJ, Swennen G, Lubbers HT, Dempf R. Reconstruction of orbital wall defects with calcium phosphate cement: Clinical and histological findings in a sheep model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36:54.
50Cunningham LL. The use of calcium phosphate cements in the maxillofacial region. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2005;15:609.
51Sato I, Akizuki T, Oda S, Tsuchioka H, Hayashi C, Takasaki AA, et al. Histological evaluation of alveolar ridge augmentation using injectable calcium phosphate bone cement in dogs. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:762-9.
52Mai R, Reinstorf A, Pilling E, Hlawitschka M, Jung R, Gelinsky M, et al. Histologic study of incorporation and resorption of a bone cement-collagen composite: An in vivo study in the minipig. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:e9-14.
53Charnley J. Anchorage of the femoral head prosthesis to the shaft of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1960;42-B:28-30.
54Zhang J, Liu W, Schnitzler V, Tancret F, Bouler JM. Calcium phosphate cements for bone substitution: Chemistry, handling and mechanical properties. Acta Biomater 2014;10:1035-49.
55Raju V, Mayank C, Abhishek V. J Clin Orthopaedics Trauma 2013;41:57-163.
56Koch FP, Becker J, Terheyden H, Capsius B, Wagner W. A prospective, randomized pilot study on the safety and efficacy of recombinant human growth and differentiation factor-5 coated onto β-tricalcium phosphate for sinus lift augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:1301-8.
57Zou D, Guo L, Lu J, Zhang X, Wei J, Liu C, et al. Engineering of bone using porous calcium phosphate cement and bone marrow stromal cells for maxillary sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement in goats. Tissue Eng Part A 2012;18:1464-78.
58Lin DJ, Ju CP, Huang SH, Tien YC, Yin HS, Chen WC, et al. Mechanical testing and osteointegration of titanium implant with calcium phosphate bone cement and autograft alternatives. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2011;4:1186-95.
59Baier M, Staudt P, Klein R, Sommer U, Wenz R, Grafe I, et al. Strontium enhances osseointegration of calcium phosphate cement: A histomorphometric pilot study in ovariectomized rats. J Orthop Surg Res 2013;8:16.
60Mona I. Winge. Olav Reikeras. Magne Rokkum. Calcium phosphate cement: A possible alternative to autologous bone graft. A radiological and biomechanical comparison in rat tibial bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011;131:1035-41.
61Xie C, Lu H, Li W, Chen FM, Zhao YM. The use of calcium phosphate-based biomaterials in implant dentistry. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2012;23:853-62.
62Planell JA, Vila MM, Gil FJ, Driessens FC. Acrylic bone cements. In: Wise D, Trantolo D, Altobelli D, Yaszemski M, Gresser J, Schwartz E, editors; 1995. p. 879-922.
63Lew D, Rubey T, Krizan K, Keller JC. Use of hydroxyapatite cement to support implants in extraction sockets. Implant Dent 2000;9:45-50.
64Arisan V, Anil A, Wolke JG, Ozer K. The effect of injectable calcium phosphate cement on bone anchorage of titanium implants: An experimental feasibility study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:463-8.
65He Z, Zhai Q, Hu M, Cao C, Wang J, Yang H, et al. Bone cements for percutaneous vertebroplasty and ballon khyphoplasty: Current status and future developments. J Orthopaedic Trans 2015;3:1-11.
66Yang L, Perez-Amodio S, Barrère-de Groot FY, Everts V, van Blitterswijk CA, Habibovic P. The effects of inorganic additives to calcium phosphate on in vitro behavior of osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Biomaterials 2010;31:2976-89.
67LeGeros RZ. Calcium phosphate-based osteoinductive materials. Chem Rev 2008;108:4742-53.
68Sohier J, Daculsi G, Sourice S, de Groot K, Layrolle P. Porous beta tricalcium phosphate scaffolds used as a BMP-2 delivery system for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010;92:1105-14.
69Son JS, Appleford M, Ong JL, Wenke JC, Kim JM, Choi SH, et al. Porous hydroxyapatite scaffold with three-dimensional localized drug delivery system using biodegradable microspheres. J Control Release 2011;153:133-40.
70Chen FM, Shelton RM, Jin Y, Chapple IL. Localized delivery of growth factors for periodontal tissue regeneration: Role, strategies, and perspectives. Med Res Rev 2009;29:472-513.
71Chow LC. Next generation calcium phosphate-based biomaterials. Dent Mater J 2009;28:1-0.
72Liu Y, Huse RO, de Groot K, Buser D, Hunziker EB. Delivery mode and efficacy of BMP-2 in association with implants. J Dent Res 2007;86:84-9.
73Vayron R, Karasinski P, Mathieu V, Michel A, Loriot D, Richard G, et al. Variation of the ultrasonic response of a dental implant embedded in tricalcium silicate-based cement under cyclic loading. J Biomech 2013;46:1162-8.
74Ginebra MP, Traykova T, Planell JA. Calcium phosphate cements as bone drug delivery systems: A review. J Control Release 2006;113:102-10.
75Stavropoulos A, Becker J, Capsius B, Açil Y, Wagner W, Terheyden H. Histological evaluation of maxillary sinus floor augmentation with recombinant human growth and differentiation factor-5-coated b-tricalcium phosphate: Results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:966-74.
76Wang L, Zou D, Zhang S, Zhao J, Pan K, Huang Y. Repair of bone defects around dental implants with bone morphogenetic protein/fibroblast growth factor loaded porous calcium phosphate cement: A pilot study in a canine model. Clin. Oral Impl Res 2011;22:173-81.
77Weng D, Poehling S, Pippig S, Bell M, Richter EJ, Zuhr O, et al. The effects of recombinant human growth/differentiation factor-5 (rhGDF-5) on bone regeneration around titanium dental implants in barrier membrane-protected defects: A pilot study in the mandible of beagle dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:31-7.
78Choo T, Marino V, Mark Bartold P. Effect of PDGF-BB and beta-tricalcium phosphate (b-TCP) on bone formation around dental implants: A pilot study in sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02345.x.
79Luvizuto ER, Tangl S, Zanoni G, Okamoto T, Sonoda CK, Gruber R, Okamoto R. The effect of BMP-2 on the osteoconductive properties of b-tricalcium phosphate in rat calvaria defects. Biomaterials 2011;32:3855-61.
80Lind M, Overgaard S, Nguyen T, Ongpipattanakul B, Bunger C, Soballe K. Transforming growth factor-b stimulates bone ongrowth. Hydroxyapatite-coated implants studied in dogs. Acta Orthop Scand 1996;67:611-6.
81Koubi G, Colon P, Franquin JC, Hartmann A, Richard G, Faure MO, et al. Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, Biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth-a prospective study. Clin Oral Investigations 2012;784:701-9.
82Koubi S, Elmerini H, Koubi G, Tassery H, Camps J. Quantitative evaluation by glucose diffusion of microleakage in aged calcium silicate-based open-sandwich restorations. Int J Dent 2012;10:105863.
83O'Brien W. Dental Materials and their Selection. Calumet City, IL, USA: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc.; 2008.
84Sawyer AN, Nikonov SY, Pancio AK, Niu LN, Agee KA, Loushine RJ, et al. Effects of calcium silicate-based materials on the flexural properties of dentin. J Endod 2012;38:680-3.
85Golberg M, Pradelle-Plasse N, Tran X, Colon P, Laurent P, Aubut V, et al. Biocompatibility or cytotoxic effects of dental composites. Ch. VI. Emerging Trends in (Bio) Material Researches: VI-1-Repair or Regeneration, A Short Review. And VI-2-An Example of New Material: Preclinical Multicentric Studies on a New Ca3SiO5-Based Dental Material. Oxfordshire, UK: Coxmoor Publishing Company; 2009.
86Laurent P, Camps J, About I. Biodentine™inducesTGF-beta1release from human pulp cells and early dental pulp mineralization. Int Endod J 2012;45:439-48.
87Laurent P, Camps J, De M, Dejou J, About I. Induction of specific cell responses to a Ca(3)SiO(5)-based posterior restorative material. Dental Materi Als 2008;24:1486-94.
88Camilleri J, Kralj P, Veber M, Sinagra E. Characterization and analyses of acid-extractable and leached trace elements in dental cements. Int Endod J 2012;45:737-43.
89Leiendecker AP, Qi YP, Sawyer AN, Niu LN, Agee KA, Loushine RJ, et al. Effects of calcium silicate-based materials on collagen matrix integrity of mineralized dentin. J Endod 2012;38:829-33.
90Kenny SM, Buggy M. Bone cements and fillers: A review. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2003;14:923-38.
91Watanabe M, Tanaka M, Sakurai M, Maeda M. Development of calcium phosphate cement. J Europ Ceramic Soc 2006:26:549-52.
92Al Ansary MA, Day PF, Duggal MS, Brunton PA. Interventions for Treating Traumatized Necrotic Immature Permanent Anterior Teeth: Inducing a Calcific Barrier and Root Strengthening; 2009.
93Klaus-Dieter K. Ch. 3.1. Properties of Bone Cements. What is Bone Cements? Part II Basic Science.
94Smeets R, Marx R, et al. In Vitro Study of Adhesive Polymethymethacrylate Bone Cement Bonding to Cortical Bone in Maxillofacial Surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:3028-33.
95Ooms EM,J.G.C., et al. Histological evaluation of the bone response to calcium phosphate cement implanted in cortical bone. Biomaterials 2003;24:989-1000.
96Narayanan R, Seshadri SK, Kwon TY, Kim KH. Calcium phosphate-based coatings on titanium and its alloys. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008;85:279-99.