Recently, while working on a project, TSB began to wonder about the advent and evolution of synthetic bone graft materials, and the many claims that exist regarding the efficacy of one product or one's science that has been utilized to exceed a competitors claims. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of our readers. As regenerative therapies gain momentum and revolutionize preferential modalities of treatment. What is it about one product that truly differentiates itself as the leader, as a game changer, or is some of the science that exists behind the curtain regarding the science, more smoke than mirrors? Questions that still abound are:
Is it the Science?
Is it the Structural Composition?
Is it the Chemistry?
Is it the Porosity?
Is it the Resorption Rate?
Is it the Sintering Technique?
Is it the Silicate?
Is it the Silicate?
The industry is enamored with marketing nomenclature. "Does it taste great, but is it less filling?" Is there one product that is really that much better? When will we see commercials reenacting an incident whereby someone benefits from a specific bone grafting material? Maybe someone falling out of the bathtub after a Cialis moment? The industry throws around words like osteoconductive, osteoinductive (BMP), osteostimulative (Actifuse/Novabone), bioactive, osteoinductive potential (Alphatec WTF), platelet derived growth factors, Bone Morphogenic Proteins, and last but not least, the latest and greatest craze stem cells. It's a wonder no one has trademarked the line "osteoproductive." It does produce bone, doesn't it? Granted, some of these fall into distinct yet separate categories, but they are all engineered in one shape or manner. Do some of these products work better than others? Which ones? TSB is sure that the public would love to hear our readers take on this segment of the industry. Is one product safer than another, if used properly? If the intent is bone remodeling, how does one substantiate that one material recruits mesenchymal/osteoprogenitor cells faster, differentiating into osteoblast which secrete the matrix for the onset of bone formation? How fast is fast? Is it nanoseconds, is it a matter of minutes, of hours? And if in the end, bone remodeling does take place, meaning a successful outcome, does it really matter what magic dust is used? How do some of these companies substantiate their claims?
The AIDS epidemic of the 80's created tremendous opportunities for pull thru revenue that many have taken advantage of. It also let the marketing boogeyman out of the closet. But what is it about one product that makes it so unique in comparison to another? Is it truly science? Is it marketing? Is it about relationships? Are surgeons basing their decision making on science or on relationships? TSB wants to know what our readers think?