cerabone® plus
Mastering application comfort. Sticky bone out of the blister.

Discover our courses
Buy now

cerabone® plus is a combination of the established bovine bone grafting material cerabone® and sodium hyaluronate. Upon contact with saline or blood, it forms a a sticky bone material, leading to excellent handling comfort by allowing both easy uptake and delivery to the site of application.

Features and benefits

Discover more in the brochure
Show FAQs
Sticky and malleable after hydration

Thanks to the pronounced liquid binding capacities of hyaluronate, cerabone® plus, upon hydration, forms a connected and malleable mass that provides easier application compared to conventional particulate bone grafts. cerabone® plus allows easy uptake, precise particle application, efficient defect filling and easy defect contouring.
Ideal liquid binding capacity of hyaluronic acid

Hyaluronic acid is capable to incorporate a liquid volume 1000 times larger than the molecule itself. It is highly hygroscopic, biodegradable, and will be quickly decomposed in the early phase of healing.
Human-like bone structure of bone mineral component

The bone mineral component (cerabone®) displays human-like bone structure with three-dimensional pore-network and rough surface. The osteoconductive scaffold promotes the adhesion and invasion of bone forming cells, resulting in complete integration of the granules into newly formed bone matrix.
1200 °C safety and biocompatibility

Utilizing heat and water only, the 1200 °C heating process of cerabone® removes all organic component and leads to a pure natural bone mineral. Gamma-irradiation ensures final sterility of cerabone® plus.
Long-term volume stability

With limited degradation, cerabone® plus provides predictable and viable structural support to the augmented site, which is particularly advantageous for support of the soft tissue in the aesthetic region, for preservation of the ridge shape and to protect autologous or allogenic bone from resorption.

Watch and learn

  • Prof. Serhat Aslan, Prof. Sofia Aroca and Dr. Miguel Stanley about cerabone plus

    Prof. Serhat Aslan, Prof. Sofia Aroca and Dr. Miguel Stanley share their enthusiasm about how the application comfort of cerabone® plus improves their daily practice and the treatment of complex bone defects as well as their opinion about the regenerative properties of the hyaluronic acid it contains.

  • cerabone® plus handling video

    The advantageous properties of cerabone® plus and its preparation before use, including the proper hydration of the product.

cerabone® plus use cases on youTooth

Do you have more questions about cerabone® plus?

Download Straumann® Regenerative Solutions brochure to learn more about cerabone® or share your questions with us.

Download brochure
Get in touch

Looking for additional information? You'll find them in the download center.

Online courses

Learn more about Straumann® Regenerative Solutions

Show more

Other Bone Grafts products

Get in touch

Data usage agreement*

Read our privacy notice.

Please retype the code above

References

1. Pröhl A et al. 2021. In Vivo Analysis of the Biocompatibility and Bone Healing Capacity of a Novel Bone Grafting Material Combined with Hyaluronic Acid. Int J Mol Sci. May 1;22(9):48.
2. cerabone® plus usability test, data on file.
3. Customer survey cerabone® plus including 156 clinicians, data on file.
4. Tadic and Epple 2004. A thorough physicochemical characterisation of 14 calcium phosphate-based bone substitution materials in compari­son to natural bone. Biomaterials. 25(6):987-94.
5. Seidel and Dingeldein 2004. cerabone® – Bovine Based Spongiosa Ceramic Seidel et al. Mat.-wiss. u. Werkstofftech. 35:208–212
6. Vanis et al. 2006. Numerical computation of the porosity of bone substitution materials from synchro-tron micro computer tomographic data Mat.-wiss. u. Werkstofftech. 37, No. 6.
7. Tadic et al. 2004. Comparison of different methods for the preparation of porous bone substitution ma-terials and structural investigations by synchrotron l-computer tomography Mat.-wiss. u. Werkstofftech. 35, No. 4.
8. Trajkovski et al. 2018. Hydrophilicity, Viscoelastic, and Physicochemical Properties Variations in Dental Bone Grafting Substitutes. Materials (Basel). 30;11(2). pii: E215.
9. Tawil et al. 2016. Sinus Floor Elevation Using the Lateral Approach and Bone Window RepositioningI: Clinical and Radiographic Results in 102 Consecutively Treated Patients Followed from 1 to 5 Years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 31(4):827-34.
10. Tawil et al. 2018. Sinus Floor Elevation Using the Lateral Approach and Window Repositioning and a Xenogeneic Bone Substitute as a Grafting Material: A Histologic, Histo­morphometric, and Radio-graphic Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.33(5):1089–1096.
11. Riachi et al. 2012. Influence of material properties on rate of resorption of two bone graft materials af-ter sinus lift using radiographic assessment. Int J Dent. 2012:737262.
12. Lorean et al. 2014. Nasal floor elevation combined with dental implant placement: a long-term report of up to 86 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 29(3):705-8.
13. Fienitz et al. 2016. Histological and radiological evaluation of sintered and non-sintered deproteinized bovine bone substitute materials in sinus augmentation procedures. A prospective, randomized-con-trolled, clinical multicenter study. Clin Oral Investig. 21(3):787-794.
14. Khojasteh A et al. 2016. Tuberosity-alveolar block as a donor site for localised augmentation of the maxilla: a retrospective clinical study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Oct;54(8):950-955.
15. John et al. 2009 Perspectives in the selection of hyaluronic acid fillers for facial wrinkles and aging skin. Patient Prefer Adherence. Nov 3;3:225-30.
16. Stern R, Asari AA, Sugahara KN. Hyaluronan fragments: an information-rich system. Eur J Cell Biol. 2006 Aug;85(8):699-715. doi:10.1016/j.ejcb.2006.05.009. Epub 2006 Jul 5. PMID: 16822580.
17. Kyyak et al. 2021 The Influence of Hyaluronic Acid Biofunctionalization of a Bovine Bone Substitute on Osteoblast Activity In Vitro. Materials (Basel). 2021 May 27;14(11):2885.
18. Rothamel et al. 2012. Biocompatibility and biodegradation of a native porcine pericardium membrane: results of in vitro and in vivo examinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.27(1):146-54. 19. Brown et al. 2000. New studies on the heat resistance of hamster-adapted scrapie agent: threshold survival after ashing at 600 degrees C suggests an inorganic template of replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 28;97(7):3418-21.
20. Murugan et al. 2003. Heat-deproteinated xenogeneic bone from slaughterhouse waste: Physico-chemical properties Bulletin of Material Science Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 523–528.
21. Perić Kačarević et al. 2018 Purification processes of xenogeneic bone substitutes and their impact on tissue reactions and regeneration. Int J Artif Organs. 2018 Nov;41(11):789-800.
22. cerabone® usability test, data on file.
23. Barbeck M et al. 2014. High-Temperature sintering of xenogeneic bone substi­tutes leads to increased multinucleated giant cell formation: In vivo and preliminary clinical results. The Journal of oral implan-tology. 4110.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00168.