Table 2.

Comparison between β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) ceramic and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) [2].

Material	Advantage	Disadvantage	Indication/Application
Beta tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) (i.e., IngeniOs™ Zimmer Biomet Dental, Carlsbad, CA, USA; Cerasorb™ Zimmer Biomet Dental, Carlsbad, CA, USA; OSferionTM Olympus terumo biomaterials coorperation, Sasazuka, Japan; OrthograftTM DePuy, Chester County, PA, USA)	Ease of handling Radiopacity allowing monitoring of healing Resorb readily Low immunogenicity Compressive strength similar to cancellous bone	Poor mechanical properties in particular compressive strength	Filler for alveolar defects (periodontal, periapical surgery, peri-implant and cyst enucleation) Extraction sockets grafting Sinus floor elevation
Biphasic calcium phosphate (i.e., MastergraftTM Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Maxresorb® Botiss dental, Berlin, Germany) * HA/β-TCP = 40/60	Resorb readily Greater mechanical strengths than either TCP or HA alone	Compressive strength remains lower than that of cortical bone	Filler for alveolar, periodontal and cystic defects Extraction sockets grafting Ridge augmentation Sinus floor elevation Periapical surgery

* indicating ratio of hydroxyapatite (HA) to β -tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP).