Ethene oxide and bone induction: Controversy remains

Abstract

There is controversy as to whether ethene oxide (“ethylene oxide”, EO) sterilization destroys the bone-inducing capacity of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) or not. Correctly performed studies seem to support both opinions. Bone conductive properties of fresh frozen, defatted bone grafts are greatly impaired by EO sterilization, whereas purified inductive proteins resist EO. Studies showing destruction of osteoinductive capacity used nonpulverized DBM, whereas the others used powder. This could be the key to resolving the controversy, because if EO treatment reduces the cells’ ability to penetrate a cortical graft and to reach inductive proteins inside it, it may appear noninductive after EO sterilization, even though BMP molecules may be intact. On the other hand, cells could easily penetrate the powder implants.

We compared the effect of EO sterilization on the inductive capacity of demineralized cortical bone with that of DBM powder, using allogeneic material in rats. Cortical pieces lost all inductive capacity by EO sterilization, whereas the powder yielded a calcium content which was at best one fourth of the un-sterilized. The concentrations of residual EO, ethene chlorohydrin and ethene glucol at implantation were far below approved levels. Another difference between studies is the humidity during EO treatment. In our hands, humidification reduced bone yield by half.

In conclusion, EO sterilization may impair the biological performance of bone inductive implants by reducing cell penetration into bulk material. However, DBM powder, when correctly sterilized, also yielded scanty amounts of bone.