Of the in vivo behavior of calcium phosphate cements and glasses as bone substitutes

The use of injectable self-setting calcium phosphate cements or soluble glass granules represent two different strategies for bone regeneration, each with distinct advantages and potential applications. This study compares the in vivo behavior of two calcium phosphate cements and two phosphate glass...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta biomaterialia 2008-11, Vol.4 (6), p.1924-1933
Main Authors: Sanzana, E.S., Navarro, M., Macule, F., Suso, S., Planell, J.A., Ginebra, M.P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adsorption
Animals
Biocompatible Materials - chemistry
Bone Cements - chemistry
Bone grafts
Bone regenerations
Bone Substitutes - chemistry
Calcium phosphate cements
Calcium phosphates
Calcium Phosphates - chemistry
Compressive Strength
Glass - chemistry
Male
Models, Chemical
Phosphate glasses
Phosphates - chemistry
Rabbits
Solubility
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The use of injectable self-setting calcium phosphate cements or soluble glass granules represent two different strategies for bone regeneration, each with distinct advantages and potential applications. This study compares the in vivo behavior of two calcium phosphate cements and two phosphate glasses with different composition, microstructure and solubility, using autologous bone as a control, in a rabbit model. The implanted materials were α-tricalcium phosphate cement (cement H), calcium sodium potassium phosphate cement (cement R), and two phosphate glasses in the P 2O 5–CaO–Na 2O and P 2O 5–CaO–Na 2O–TiO 2 systems. The four materials were osteoconductive, biocompatible and biodegradable. Radiological and histological studies demonstrated correct osteointegration and substitution of the implants by new bone. The reactivity of the different materials, which depends on their solubility, porosity and specific surface area, affected the resorption rate and bone formation mainly during the early stages of implantation, although this effect was weak. Thus, at 4 weeks the degradation was slightly higher in cements than in glasses, especially for cement R. However, after 12 weeks of implantation all materials showed a similar degradation degree and promoted bone neoformation equivalent to that of the control group.
ISSN:1742-7061
1878-7568
DOI:10.1016/j.actbio.2008.04.023