| Literature DB >> 25448348 |
Anna Kovtun1, Melanie J Goeckelmann1, Antje A Niclas2, Edgar B Montufar3, Maria-Pau Ginebra3, Josep A Planell4, Matteo Santin5, Anita Ignatius6.
Abstract
Major limitations of calcium phosphate cements (CPCs) are their relatively slow degradation rate and the lack of macropores allowing the ingrowth of bone tissue. The development of self-setting cement foams has been proposed as a suitable strategy to overcome these limitations. In previous work we developed a gelatine-based hydroxyapatite foam (G-foam), which exhibited good injectability and cohesion, interconnected porosity and good biocompatibility in vitro. In the present study we evaluated the in vivo performance of the G-foam. Furthermore, we investigated whether enrichment of the foam with soybean extract (SG-foam) increased its bioactivity. G-foam, SG-foam and non-foamed CPC were implanted in a critical-size bone defect in the distal femoral condyle of New Zealand white rabbits. Bone formation and degradation of the materials were investigated after 4, 12 and 20weeks using histological and biomechanical methods. The foams maintained their macroporosity after injection and setting in vivo. Compared to non-foamed CPC, cellular degradation of the foams was considerably increased and accompanied by new bone formation. The additional functionalization with soybean extract in the SG-foam slightly reduced the degradation rate and positively influenced bone formation in the defect. Furthermore, both foams exhibited excellent biocompatibility, implying that these novel materials may be promising for clinical application in non-loaded bone defects.Entities:
Keywords: Bone regeneration; Calcium phosphate cement; Gelatine; Rabbit model; Soybean
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25448348 PMCID: PMC4298359 DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.10.034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Biomater ISSN: 1742-7061 Impact factor: 8.947
Fig. 1XRD patterns of the non-foamed CPC and the SG-foam implants 4 weeks after implantation compared with the intact bone.
Fig. 2Histological images of bony implants. Upper row: non-foam CPC after 4 (A), 12 (B) and 20 (C) weeks; second row: G-foam after 4 (D), 12 (E) and 20 (F) weeks; third row: SG-foam after 4 (G), 12 (H) and 20 (I) weeks; bottom row: subcutaneous implants after 20 weeks (J: CPC; K: G-foam; L: SG-foam). Paragon staining. Bars: 1000 μm.
Fig. 4Quantification of the remaining material and of the tissue in the defect area after 4 (A), 12 (B) and 20 (C) weeks of implantation. All the data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 6-7, ∗p < 0.05).
Fig. 3Histological images at higher magnifications of bony (A–G, Giemsa staining) and subcutaneous implants (H–I; Giemsa staining). (A) CPC after 12 weeks; (B) G-foam after 4 weeks; (C) osteoclast on foam particles (white arrow) in G-foam; (D) G-foam after 12 weeks; (E) G-foam after 20 weeks; (F) SG-foam after 4 weeks; (G) SG-foam after 20 weeks (remaining foam particles are embedded in the new bone); (H) subcutaneous G-foam implant (vessel formation is present (black arrow) and macrophages are on the cement (white arrows)); (I) subcutaneous SG-foam implant (macrophage on the foam is marked with a white arrow). Bars: 100 μm (A–E, G and H) or 200 μm (F and I).
Fig. 5Stiffness of the defect zone in the different material groups 4, 12 and 20 weeks after implantation. All the data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 6-7, ∗p < 0.05).