RTI Biologics

Alachua, FL, United States

RTI Biologics

Alachua, FL, United States
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Faleris J.A.,RTI Biologics Inc. | Hernandez R.M.C.,RTI Biologics Inc. | Wetzel D.,RTI Biologics Inc. | Dodds R.,RTI Biologics | Greenspan D.C.,Spinode Consulting
Hernia | Year: 2011

Purpose: Post-herniation abdominal wall repair can be performed with synthetic or biologic meshes. Synthetics have been associated with complications, so biologics are promising alternatives. The methods used to decellularize biological matrices may affect the extracellular components. This study evaluated the post-implantation biological response of two allogenic acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in a hernia model. Methods: Testing was conducted with two ADMs from different manufacturers: RTI Biologics (ADM-R) and LifeCell (ADM-L). Samples were evaluated for collagen IV, glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), and elastin before implantation. Samples were also used to repair bilateral full-thickness defects in rat abdominal walls. Pathologist evaluations included explant dimensions, inflammation, neovascularization, mature implant tissue, fibrosis, encapsulation, necrosis, mineralization, adhesions, granulomas, and hemorrhages at four and eight weeks post-implantation. Results: GAG distribution in ADM-R samples was more consistent with native dermis than that in ADM-L samples. Collagen IV was visible in ADM-R, but not in ADM-L. The four-week ADM-R explants showed primarily lymphocytic infiltrates, and less inflammation at eight weeks. The four-week ADM-L explants showed primarily lymphocytic infiltrates, and sustained inflammation at eight weeks. Fibroplasia at four and eight weeks was higher in ADM-L than in ADM-R. Encapsulation, mature connective tissue, and vascular profile scores were comparable between groups. Picrosirius red image analysis showed no significant differences between groups. Conclusions: The post-processing matrix characterization and in-vivo response showed notable differences in these ADMs, despite similar allogenic origin. Future investigations into the different matrix composition with regard to fibrosis and inflammation are warranted. © 2010 Springer-Verlag.


— This report studies Artificial Implant in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with Production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering Biomet, Inc. (US) Biomet 3i, Inc. (US) Boston Scientific Corporation (US) Cochlear Limited (Australia) Abiomed, Inc. (US) Dentsply International, Inc. (US) DePuy Spine Inc. (US) Exactech Inc. (US) GS Medical LLC (US) Japan Medical Dynamic Marketing Inc. (Japan) LDR Holding Corporation (France) TTK Healthcare, Ltd. (India) Medtronic, Inc. (US) Nobel Biocare AB (Sweden) Nuvasive, Inc. (US) RTI Biologics, Inc. (US) Showa Ika Kohgyo Co., Ltd (Japan) Terumo Corporation (Japan) Straumann AG (Switzerland) Stryker Corporation (US) For more information or any query mail at sales@wiseguyreports.com Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Artificial Implant in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like North America Europe China Japan Southeast Asia India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Orthopedic Implants Dental Implants Cochlear Implants Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Artificial Implant in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 Global Artificial Implant Market Research Report 2016 1 Artificial Implant Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Artificial Implant 1.2 Artificial Implant Segment by Type 1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Artificial Implant by Type in 2015 1.2.2 Orthopedic Implants 1.2.3 Dental Implants 1.2.4 Cochlear Implants 1.3 Artificial Implant Segment by Application 1.3.1 Artificial Implant Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015 1.3.2 Application 1 1.3.3 Application 2 1.3.4 Application 3 1.4 Artificial Implant Market by Region 1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Artificial Implant (2011-2021) 2 Global Artificial Implant Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1 Global Artificial Implant Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.2 Global Artificial Implant Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.3 Global Artificial Implant Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.4 Manufacturers Artificial Implant Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type 2.5 Artificial Implant Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.5.1 Artificial Implant Market Concentration Rate 2.5.2 Artificial Implant Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers 2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 7 Global Artificial Implant Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis 7.1 Biomet, Inc. (US) 7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.1.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.1.2.1 Type I 7.1.2.2 Type II 7.1.3 Biomet, Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.2 Biomet 3i, Inc. (US) 7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.2.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.2.2.1 Type I 7.2.2.2 Type II 7.2.3 Biomet 3i, Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.3 Boston Scientific Corporation (US) 7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.3.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.3.2.1 Type I 7.3.2.2 Type II 7.3.3 Boston Scientific Corporation (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.4 Cochlear Limited (Australia) 7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.4.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.4.2.1 Type I 7.4.2.2 Type II 7.4.3 Cochlear Limited (Australia) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.5 Abiomed, Inc. (US) 7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.5.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.5.2.1 Type I 7.5.2.2 Type II 7.5.3 Abiomed, Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.6 Dentsply International, Inc. (US) 7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.6.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.6.2.1 Type I 7.6.2.2 Type II 7.6.3 Dentsply International, Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.7 DePuy Spine Inc. (US) 7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.7.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.7.2.1 Type I 7.7.2.2 Type II 7.7.3 DePuy Spine Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.8 Exactech Inc. (US) 7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.8.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.8.2.1 Type I 7.8.2.2 Type II 7.8.3 Exactech Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.9 GS Medical LLC (US) 7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.9.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.9.2.1 Type I 7.9.2.2 Type II 7.9.3 GS Medical LLC (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.10 Japan Medical Dynamic Marketing Inc. (Japan) 7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.10.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification 7.10.2.1 Type I 7.10.2.2 Type II For more information or any query mail at sales@wiseguyreports.com ABOUT US: Wise Guy Reports is part of the Wise Guy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for industries and governments around the globe. Wise Guy Reports features an exhaustive list of market research reports from hundreds of publishers worldwide. We boast a database spanning virtually every market category and an even more comprehensive collection of market research reports under these categories and sub-categories. For more information, please visit https://www.wiseguyreports.com


WiseGuyReports.Com Publish a New Market Research Report On –“Artificial Implant Market by Manufacturers,Types,Regions and Applications Research Report Forecast to 2021”. This report studies Artificial Implant in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with Production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering  Biomet, Inc. (US)  Biomet 3i, Inc. (US)  Boston Scientific Corporation (US)  Cochlear Limited (Australia)  Abiomed, Inc. (US)  Dentsply International, Inc. (US)  DePuy Spine Inc. (US)  Exactech Inc. (US)  GS Medical LLC (US)  Japan Medical Dynamic Marketing Inc. (Japan)  LDR Holding Corporation (France)  TTK Healthcare, Ltd. (India)  Medtronic, Inc. (US)  Nobel Biocare AB (Sweden)  Nuvasive, Inc. (US)  RTI Biologics, Inc. (US)  Showa Ika Kohgyo Co., Ltd (Japan)  Terumo Corporation (Japan)  Straumann AG (Switzerland)  Stryker Corporation (US) For more information or any query mail at [email protected] Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Artificial Implant in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like  North America  Europe  China  Japan  Southeast Asia  India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into  Orthopedic Implants  Dental Implants  Cochlear Implants Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Artificial Implant in each application, can be divided into  Application 1  Application 2  Application 3 Global Artificial Implant Market Research Report 2016  1 Artificial Implant Market Overview  1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Artificial Implant  1.2 Artificial Implant Segment by Type  1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Artificial Implant by Type in 2015  1.2.2 Orthopedic Implants  1.2.3 Dental Implants  1.2.4 Cochlear Implants  1.3 Artificial Implant Segment by Application  1.3.1 Artificial Implant Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015  1.3.2 Application 1  1.3.3 Application 2  1.3.4 Application 3  1.4 Artificial Implant Market by Region  1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Artificial Implant (2011-2021) 2 Global Artificial Implant Market Competition by Manufacturers  2.1 Global Artificial Implant Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016)  2.2 Global Artificial Implant Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016)  2.3 Global Artificial Implant Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016)  2.4 Manufacturers Artificial Implant Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type  2.5 Artificial Implant Market Competitive Situation and Trends  2.5.1 Artificial Implant Market Concentration Rate  2.5.2 Artificial Implant Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers  2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 7 Global Artificial Implant Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis  7.1 Biomet, Inc. (US)  7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.1.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.1.2.1 Type I  7.1.2.2 Type II  7.1.3 Biomet, Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.2 Biomet 3i, Inc. (US)  7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.2.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.2.2.1 Type I  7.2.2.2 Type II  7.2.3 Biomet 3i, Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.3 Boston Scientific Corporation (US)  7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.3.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.3.2.1 Type I  7.3.2.2 Type II  7.3.3 Boston Scientific Corporation (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.4 Cochlear Limited (Australia)  7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.4.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.4.2.1 Type I  7.4.2.2 Type II  7.4.3 Cochlear Limited (Australia) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.5 Abiomed, Inc. (US)  7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.5.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.5.2.1 Type I  7.5.2.2 Type II  7.5.3 Abiomed, Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.6 Dentsply International, Inc. (US)  7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.6.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.6.2.1 Type I  7.6.2.2 Type II  7.6.3 Dentsply International, Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.7 DePuy Spine Inc. (US)  7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.7.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.7.2.1 Type I  7.7.2.2 Type II  7.7.3 DePuy Spine Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.8 Exactech Inc. (US)  7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.8.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.8.2.1 Type I  7.8.2.2 Type II  7.8.3 Exactech Inc. (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.9 GS Medical LLC (US)  7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.9.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.9.2.1 Type I  7.9.2.2 Type II  7.9.3 GS Medical LLC (US) Artificial Implant Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.10 Japan Medical Dynamic Marketing Inc. (Japan)  7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.10.2 Artificial Implant Product Type, Application and Specification  7.10.2.1 Type I  7.10.2.2 Type II For more information or any query mail at [email protected] Wise Guy Reports is part of the Wise Guy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for industries and governments around the globe. Wise Guy Reports features an exhaustive list of market research reports from hundreds of publishers worldwide. We boast a database spanning virtually every market category and an even more comprehensive collection of market research reports under these categories and sub-categories.


Soft tissue regeneration process involves use of soft tissue for stimulating and supporting the growth of natural tissue or bone. Tissues that support, surround or connect other organs or structure in the body are referred as soft tissue. Soft tissue reinforcement treatment involves harvesting a small piece of soft tissue from other part of the body and placing it in the place of damaged soft tissue in order to support it. Request TOC (desk of content material), Figures and Tables of the report: http://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/toc/5711 Rising disposable income, awareness about tissue regeneration and reinforcement treatments and increasing success rate of procedures involving soft tissue repair technique are some of the factors that are driving the growth of global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market. While on the other hand, lack of availability of skilled healthcare professionals to perform the procedure, high cost and challenges in obtaining soft tissue implant are some of the factors that are restraining the growth of the global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market. The global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market is segmented on the basis of type of soft tissue used in the treatment as follows: Allografts market is leading the global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market and is followed by xenografts. Availability of safety data and high success rate are some of the factors that are driving the allograft and xenograft market in the global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market. The global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market is segmented on the basis of type of procedures as follows: Geographically, the global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market is segmented as North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and Rest of the World. North America comprises soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market for the U.S and Canada. Europe comprises cumulative market of soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, and Rest of Europe (RoE). Asia Pacific comprises cumulative market of soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration in China, India, Australia, New Zealand and rest of Asia Pacific (RoAPAC). Rest of the World (RoW) comprises soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market in Latin America, Middle East and Russia. Currently, Europe is dominating the global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market. North America is the second largest market in the global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market. Availability of well structured regulatory framework, advanced technology, skilled healthcare professionals and high acceptance rate for new technologies in practice are some of the factors that are driving the soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market in Europe and North America. Asia Pacific soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market is anticipated to show swift market growth in near future. Rapidly developing healthcare infrastructure on the grounds of swiftly growing medical tourism industry in this region is propelling the growth of soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market in Asia Pacific. Some of the key players operating in the global soft tissue reinforcement and regeneration market include BioHorizons, Aesculap/B. Braun, Biomet, Geistlich, Smith & Nephew, RTI Biologics, MiMedx, C. R. Bard , LifeCell  Corporation, Atrium Medical, Zimmer Holdings, Cook Medical, Dentsply, Medtronic, Stryker, Depuy Synthes, Covidien, Ethicon, Boston Scientific, American Medical Systems, Integra LifeSciences and Citagenix.


This report studies Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with Production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering  Pfizer  Abbott  Johnson & Johnson  Merck  Amgen  Roche  BMS  Medtronic  AB Science  Zimmer Biomet  Arthrex  Stryker  Smith & Nephew  Baxter  Orthofix  RTI Biologics Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like  North America  Europe  China  Japan  Southeast Asia  India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into  Metallic Biomaterials  Polymeric Biomaterials  Inorganic Non-Metallic Biomaterials Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal in each application, can be divided into  Application 1  Application 2  Application 3 1 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Market Overview  1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal  1.2 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Segment by Type  1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal by Type in 2015  1.2.2 Metallic Biomaterials  1.2.3 Polymeric Biomaterials  1.2.4 Inorganic Non-Metallic Biomaterials  1.3 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Segment by Application  1.3.1 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015  1.3.2 Application 1  1.3.3 Application 2  1.3.4 Application 3  1.4 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Market by Region  1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021)  1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal (2011-2021) 2 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Market Competition by Manufacturers  2.1 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016)  2.2 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016)  2.3 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016)  2.4 Manufacturers Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type  2.5 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Market Competitive Situation and Trends  2.5.1 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Market Concentration Rate  2.5.2 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers  2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 3 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue (Value) by Region (2011-2016)  3.1 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production and Market Share by Region (2011-2016)  3.2 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Revenue (Value) and Market Share by Region (2011-2016)  3.3 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016)  3.4 North America Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016)  3.5 Europe Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016)  3.6 China Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016)  3.7 Japan Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016)  3.8 Southeast Asia Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016)  3.9 India Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 4 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016)  4.1 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Consumption by Regions (2011-2016)  4.2 North America Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016)  4.3 Europe Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016)  4.4 China Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016)  4.5 Japan Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016)  4.6 Southeast Asia Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016)  4.7 India Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 7 Global Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis  7.1 Pfizer  7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.1.2 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Product Type, Application and Specification  7.1.2.1 Type I  7.1.2.2 Type II  7.1.3 Pfizer Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.2 Abbott  7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.2.2 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Product Type, Application and Specification  7.2.2.1 Type I  7.2.2.2 Type II  7.2.3 Abbott Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016)  7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview  7.3 Johnson & Johnson  7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors  7.3.2 Biomaterials for Musculoskeletal Product Type, Application and Specification  7.3.2.1 Type I  7.3.2.2 Type II


Dodds R.A.,RTI Biologics | York-Ely A.M.,RTI Biologics | Zhukauskas R.,RTI Biologics | Arola T.,RTI Biologics | And 4 more authors.
Journal of Biomaterials Applications | Year: 2010

The use of bone grafts is an essential component in spinal fusion. Autologous bone has been shown to result in long-term stable arthrodesis between spinal motion segments. However, autograft can be associated with significant morbidity and a limited supply. Alternatives, such as allogeneic demineralized bone matrix (DBM), are a potential source and supplement to autograft bone. The current study compares the ability of a DBM product (BioSet® RT) and a coralline hydroxyapatite (Pro Osteon® 500R), for inducing spinal fusion in a rabbit model. BioSet® RT, alone or in combination with autograft, and Pro Osteon® 500R were implanted in the posterior lateral inter-transverse process region of the rabbit spine. The spines were evaluated at 18 weeks for fusion of the L4-L5 transverse processes using a total of 33 skeletally mature male rabbits; 4 naïve animals were also included in the study. Samples were evaluated radiographically, histologically, by palpation, and through mechanical strength testing. Radiographical, histological, and palpation measurements demonstrated the ability of BioSet® RT to induce new bone formation and bridging fusion comparable to autograft. This material performed well alone or in combination with autograft material. Despite significantly higher biomechanical testing results, minimal bone formation and fusion was recorded for the Pro Osteon® 500R-treated group. This in vivo study demonstrates the ability of BioSet®RT to induce new bone formation, and there was a clear relationship between bridging bone and mechanical strength.


PubMed | Sports Medicine Group, RTI Biologics and Athersys
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine | Year: 2016

Multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs) from bone marrow have been shown to be capable of forming bone, cartilage and other connective tissues. In addition, MAPCs differentiate into lineages that are different from their germ layers of origin. Previous studies showed the ability of MAPCs to improve cardiac function and control allogenic-reactive responses associated with acute graft versus host disease. In the current study, we evaluated the ability of MAPCs to produce bone matrix on demineralized bone allograft substrates. Specifically, MAPCs expressed alkaline phosphatase, produced extracellular matrix proteins and deposited calcium-containing mineral on demineralized bone matrices. Furthermore, the addition of MAPCs on demineralized bone matrix (DBM) scaffolds enhanced osteoinductivity of the carrier in a rat ectopic pouch model. These results demonstrated the potential of MAPCs as a new approach for bone repair in tissue-engineering applications.


Zhukauskas R.,RTI Biologics | Dodds R.A.,RTI Biologics | Hartill C.,RTI Biologics | Arola T.,RTI Biologics | And 2 more authors.
Journal of Biomaterials Applications | Year: 2010

Complex fractures resulting in bone loss or impaired fracture healing remain problematic in trauma and orthopedic surgeries. Many bone graft substitutes have been developed and are commercially available. These products differ in their osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties. Differential enhancement of these properties may optimize the performance of these products for various orthopedic and craniofacial applications. The use of bone graft substitutes offers the ability to lessen the possible morbidity of the harvest site in autografts. The objective of the present study was to compare the ability of two bone graft substitutes, BioSet® RT, an allograft demineralized bone matrix formulation, and ProOsteon® 500R, a coralline hydroxyapatite, in a rabbit critical tibial defect model. BioSet ® RT and ProOsteon® 500R were implanted into a unicortical proximal metaphyseal tibial defect and evaluated for new bone formation. Samples were analyzed radiographically and histologically at 1 day, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks post surgery. Both materials were biocompatible and demonstrated significant bone growth and remodeling. At 12 weeks, the BioSet® RT implanted sites demonstrated significantly more defect closure and bone remodeling as determined by radiographic analyses with 10 out of 14 defects being completely healed versus 1 out of 14 being completely healed in the ProOsteon® 500R implanted sites. At 24 weeks, both materials demonstrated complete closure of the defect as determined histologically. There were no statistical differences in radiographic scores between the two implanted materials. However, there was an observable trend that the BioSet® RT material generated higher histological and radiographic scores, although not statistically significant. This study provides evidence that both BioSet® RT and ProOsteon® 500R are biocompatible and able to induce new bone formation as measured in this rabbit model. In addition, this in vivo study demonstrates the ability of BioSet® RT to induce new bone formation in a shorter timeframe than ProOsteon® 500R.


PubMed | RTI Biologics
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Journal of biomaterials applications | Year: 2010

Complex fractures resulting in bone loss or impaired fracture healing remain problematic in trauma and orthopedic surgeries. Many bone graft substitutes have been developed and are commercially available. These products differ in their osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties. Differential enhancement of these properties may optimize the performance of these products for various orthopedic and craniofacial applications. The use of bone graft substitutes offers the ability to lessen the possible morbidity of the harvest site in autografts. The objective of the present study was to compare the ability of two bone graft substitutes, BioSet RT, an allograft demineralized bone matrix formulation, and ProOsteon 500R, a coralline hydroxyapatite, in a rabbit critical tibial defect model. BioSet RT and ProOsteon 500R were implanted into a unicortical proximal metaphyseal tibial defect and evaluated for new bone formation. Samples were analyzed radiographically and histologically at 1 day, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks post surgery. Both materials were biocompatible and demonstrated significant bone growth and remodeling. At 12 weeks, the BioSet RT implanted sites demonstrated significantly more defect closure and bone remodeling as determined by radiographic analyses with 10 out of 14 defects being completely healed versus 1 out of 14 being completely healed in the ProOsteon 500R implanted sites. At 24 weeks, both materials demonstrated complete closure of the defect as determined histologically. There were no statistical differences in radiographic scores between the two implanted materials. However, there was an observable trend that the BioSet RT material generated higher histological and radiographic scores, although not statistically significant. This study provides evidence that both BioSet RT and ProOsteon 500R are biocompatible and able to induce new bone formation as measured in this rabbit model. In addition, this in vivo study demonstrates the ability of BioSet RT to induce new bone formation in a shorter timeframe than ProOsteon 500R.

Loading RTI Biologics collaborators
Loading RTI Biologics collaborators