WHY POWERBONE FLEX?
A contained bone defect can be managed with POWERBONE DENTAL PUTTY due to its easy syringe delivery, defect moulding and stability without requiring a large flap and membrane for stability.  However, form stable grafts and bone cements are less suitable for flat surfaces where the defect is not contained or does not present a concavity, which is where POWERBONE FLEX is indicated. 

WHAT IS POWERBONE FLEX?
A space-creating, flexible tissue support matrix within which micro Powerbone granules are embedded on the bony side and a compressed barrier layer is presented on the soft tissue side (see image below). Powerbone Flexible Graft is fully resorbing and contains no animal or cadaver cells.

USING POWERBONE FLEX
Powerbone Flex can be trimmed with scissors, used alone, or pre-soaked with saline, blood, centrifuged cells or medicines. Powerbone Flex can be applied as a secondary tissue support matrix after a defect is regenerated with Powerbone Dental Putty.

Animation of Powerbone Flex in a ridge augmentation with simultaneous implant placement and bone surface decortication.   

HOW IS POWERBONE FLEXIBLE GRAFT PRESENTED?

1. Outer barrier layer.

2. Inner matrix containing embedded micro bone graft.

WHAT SIZES OF POWERBONE FLEXIBLE GRAFT ARE AVAILABLE?

• 15 x 20mm (x 2mm).

• 25 x 25mm (x 2mm or 4mm).

• 25 x 50mm (x 4mm).

RESORPTION OF POWERBONE FLEX

• Silicate part of the embedded Powerbone graft resorbs first, inducing angiogenesis and fast apatite formation (1,2,5)

• Beta TCP part of the embedded Powerbone graft, resorbs over 3 to 4 months, providing a scaffold to support new bone formation. 

• Polymer matrix fibres resorb in 5 to 8 months. 

CASE HISTORY – Powerbone Flexible Graft as peri-implant onlay. 

Powerbone Flexible Graft_Peri implant onlay_Feb 24

LINKED PRODUCTS      Fixation     Sutures 

Powerbone Flexible Graft – CREATED BY EXPERTS FOR EXPERTS

REFERENCES
1.Iimori Y, Kameshima Y, Yasumori A, Okada K. Effect of solid/solution ratio on apatite formation from CaSiO3 ceramics in simulated body fluid. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004;15:1247–1253.
2.Xu S, Lin K, Wang Z, Chang J, Wang L, Lu J, Ning C. Reconstruction of calvarial defect of rabbits using porous calcium silicate bioactive ceramics. Biomaterials 2008;29:2588–2596.
3.Hing KA, Wilson LF, Buckland T. Comparative performance of three ceramic bone graft substitutes. Spine J. 2007; 7(4):475-490
5.Dashnyam, K.; El-Fiqi, A.; Buitrago, J.O.; Perez, R.A.; Knowles, J.C.; Kim, H.-W. A mini-review focused on the proangiogenic role of silicate ions released from silicon-containing biomaterials. J. Tissue Eng. 2017, 8, 1–13.
6.Test Report Bonegraft Biologic, No: 2018-BME-05-1, 2018-BME-05-2, 2018-BME-05-3 and 2018-BME-05-4. 
7.Licina et al, Comparison of (SiCAP) with (Infuse) in Posterolateral Instrumented Lumbar Fusion Global Spine J 2015;5:471–478.