Comparison of various decalcifying agents to evaluate their efficacy


  • Sharon John Department of Oral Pathology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Priya Devi Department of Oral Pathology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Pooja Sharma Department of Oral Pathology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Shalini Gupta Department of Oral Pathology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Shaleen Chandra Department of Oral Pathology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India



Bone, Decalcification, Ethylene di amine tetra acetic acid, 10% formal nitric acid, 10% formic acid


Background: Bone is a biological complex structure primarily comprising collagen and minerals. It is important to demineralize these mineralized tissues to remove their calcium apatite crystals for analysing the sub-cellular, cellular, and fibrillar architecture. Six demineralizing agents’ efficacy was examined by assessing their duration, ease of handling tissue, staining, and histological criteria. The present study aimed to evaluate six commonly used demineralizing agents to identify the best decalcifying agent.

Methods: Twenty resected hard tissue specimens (1 cm × 1 cm x 1 cm) from the archives were used in the study. These segments were decalcified by solutions namely 10% nitric acid, 10% formic acid, 14% ethylene di amine tetra acetic acid (EDTA), a mixture of formic acid and hydrochloric acid (formic + HCL) 4% each, and a mixture of formic acid and nitric acid 4% each (formic + HNO3), 10% formal nitric acid further subjected to radiographic endpoint test.

Results: The present study confirmed the fact that samples treated with EDTA showed the best overall impression in terms of tissue integrity and histology followed by 10% formal nitric acid which gave fairly good cellular details and was also rapid in the action.

Conclusions: Based on the present study findings, we suggest that 10% formal nitric acid is the better decalcifying agent available, considering time and tissue integrity as two main factors.


Currey J. Bone structure and mechanics. Princeton University Press; 2002.

Weiner S, Traub W. Bone structure: from angstroms to microns. FASEB J. 1992;6:879-85.

Rho JY, Kuhn-Spearing L, Zioupos P. Mechanical properties and the hierarchical structure of bone. Med Engine Phys. 1998;20:92-102.

Prasad P, Donoghue M. A comparative study of various decalcification techniques. Indian J Dent Res. 2013;24:302.

Uma K, Chandavarkar V, Sangeetha R. Comparison of routine decalcification methods with microwave decalcification of bone and teeth. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2013;17:386.

Callis GM, Bancroft JD. Theory and Practice of Histological Techniques. 6th edn. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2008:338-360.

Bhaskar SN. Orban’s Oral Histology and Embryology. 10th edn. New Delhi: CBS Publishers and Distributors; 1990:349-354.

Brown GG. A manual for the student, practicing technologist and resident in pathology. New York: Appleton‑century‑crofts; 1978.

Culling CF, Allison RT, Barr WT. Cellular pathology technique. 4th edn. London: Butterworths; 1984.

Moore RJ. Bone. In Woods AE and Ellis RC eds. Laboratory histopathology. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1994:7.2-10.

Castania VA, Silveira JW de S da, Issy AC, Pitol DL, Castania ML, Neto AD, et al. Advantages of a combined method of decalcification compared to EDTA: advantages of a combined method. Microsc Res Tech. 2015;78:111-8.

Singh VM, Salunga RC, Huang VJ, Tran Y, Erlander M, Plumlee P, et al. Analysis of the effect of various decalcification agents on the quantity and quality of nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) recovered from bone biopsies. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2013;17:322-6.

Morse A. Formic acid-sodium citrate decalcification and butyl alcohol dehydration of teeth and bones for sectioning in paraffin. J Dent Res. 1945;24:143-53.

Roncaroli F, Mussa B, Bussolati G. Microwave oven for improved tissue fixation and decalcification. Pathologica. 1991;83:307-10.

Miquelestorena-Standley E, Jourdan ML, Collin C, Bouvier C, Larousserie F, Aubert S, et al. Effect of decalcification protocols on immunohistochemistry and molecular analyses of bone samples. Mod Pathol. 2020;33:1505-17.

Choi SE, Hong SW, Yoon SO. Proposal of an appropriate decalcification method of bone marrow biopsy specimens in the era of expanding genetic molecular study. J Pathol Transl Med. 2015;49:236-42.

Schrijver WAME, van der Groep P, Hoefnagel LD, ter Hoeve ND, Peeters T, Moelans CB, et al. Influence of decalcification procedures on immunohistochemistry and molecular pathology in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:1460-70.

Gruchy JR, Barnes PJ, Dakin Haché KA. CytoLyt® fixation and decalcification pretreatments alter antigenicity in normal tissues compared with standard formalin fixation. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2015;23:297-302.

Alers JC, Krijtenburg PJ, Vissers KJ, van Dekken H. Effect of bone decalcification procedures on dna in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization: edta is highly preferable to a routinely used acid decalcifier. J Histochem Cytochem. 1999;47:703-9.

Pang S, Su FY, Green A, Salim J, McKittrick J, Jasiuk I. Comparison of different protocols for demineralization of cortical bone. Scientific Reports. 2021;11:7012.




How to Cite

John, S., Devi, P., Sharma, P., Gupta, S., & Chandra, S. (2023). Comparison of various decalcifying agents to evaluate their efficacy. International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology, 12(4), 522–527.



Original Research Articles