| Literature DB >> 25615405 |
Johanna Unosson1,2, Edgar B Montufar3,4, Håkan Engqvist1,2, Maria-Pau Ginebra3,4, Cecilia Persson1,2.
Abstract
Resorbable calcium phosphate based bone void fillers should work as temporary templates for new bone formation. The incorporation of macropores with sizes of 100 -300 µm has been shown to increase the resorption rate of the implant and speed up bone ingrowth. In this work, macroporous brushite cements were fabricated through foaming of the cement paste, using two different synthetic surfactants, Tween® 80 and Pluronic® F-127. The macropores formed in the Pluronic samples were both smaller and less homogeneously distributed compared with the pores formed in the Tween samples. The porosity and compressive strength (CS) were comparable to previously developed hydroxyapatite foams. The cement foam containing Tween, 0.5M citric acid in the liquid, 1 mass% of disodium dihydrogen pyrophosphate mixed in the powder and a liquid to powder ratio of 0.43 mL/g, showed the highest porosity values (76% total and 56% macroporosity), while the CS was >1 MPa, that is, the hardened cement could be handled without rupture of the foamed structure. The investigated brushite foams show potential for future clinical use, both as bone void fillers and as scaffolds for in vitro bone regeneration.Entities:
Keywords: 80; Brushite; F-127; Pluronic®; Tween®; foam; porosity; setting time; strength
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25615405 PMCID: PMC5024005 DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.33355
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater ISSN: 1552-4973 Impact factor: 3.368
Figure 1Illustration of the model used for the relationship between CS and porosity.
Figure 2Micrographs of liquid foams made from 1 mass% of Tween (a, c, and e) and Pluronic (b, d, and f) in water, 1 (a and b), 3 (c and d), and 6 (e and f) min after foaming.
Relative Effects of a Change in Composition on IST, CS, Macro‐, and Total Porosity, as Illustrated by GLM Analysis and Regression, Showing Parameter Estimates with Standard Errors Within Parentheses
| Parameter | IST (min) |
| Macroporosity (%) |
| Total Porosity (%) |
| CS (MPa) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 12.9 (0.7) | <0.001 | 55.8 (3.2) | <0.001 | 76.3 (1.6) | <0.001 | 0.86 (0.26) | 0.001 |
| 1 mass% SPP + 0.5 M CA | 26.9 (1.2) | <0.001 | 28.6 (5.1) | <0.001 | 9.8 (2.7) | <0.001 | −1.06 (0.47) | 0.025 |
| 3 mass% SPP | 8.9 (0.8) | <0.001 | 7.2 (3.4) | 0.036 | 2.1 (1.7) | 0.206 | −0.70 (0.32) | 0.029 |
|
| −12.7 (1.5) | <0.001 | −54.3 (6.8) | <0.001 | −31.2 (3.4) | <0.001 | 6.05 (0.59) | <0.001 |
|
| −12.4 (1.5) | <0.001 | −40.5 (6.8) | <0.001 | −20.4 (3.4) | <0.001 | 3.86 (0.59) | <0.001 |
|
| −6.1 (1.2) | <0.001 | −28.2 (5.1) | <0.001 | −11.7 (2.6) | <0.001 | 1.92 (0.48) | <0.001 |
|
| −3.4 (0.9) | <0.001 | −19.2 (4.3) | <0.001 | −11.4 (2.1) | <0.001 | 0.95 (0.35) | 0.008 |
|
| −2.6 (0.9) | 0.003 | −12.7 (4.3) | 0.005 | −4.3 (2.2) | 0.051 | 0.77 (0.35) | 0.031 |
| Pluronic | 5.7 (0.9) | <0.001 | −16.7 (4.2) | <0.001 | −5.4 (2.1) | 0.012 | 0.84 (0.37) | 0.024 |
| 1 Mass% SPP + 0.5 M CA • Pluronic | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | −2.14 (0.62) | 0.01 |
| 3 Mass% SPP • Pluronic | NS | NS | 8.1 (3.9) | 0.039 | 5.5 (1.9) | 0.007 | −0.79 (0.37) | 0.033 |
|
| −7.7 (2.1) | <0.001 | NS | NS | NS | NS | 3.16 (0.81) | <0.001 |
|
| −6.6 (2.1) | 0.001 | 18.9 (9.0) | 0.040 | NS | NS | 1.69 (0.81) | 0.038 |
|
| −8.7 (1.6) | <0.001 | NS | NS | NS | NS | 1.36 (0.63) | 0.033 |
|
| −5.1 (1.2) | <0.001 | NS | NS | NS | NS | 1.13 (0.49) | 0.022 |
|
| −5.1 (1.2) | <0.001 | NS | NS | −6.7 (2.7) | 0.018 | NS | NS |
T‐0.50–2‐W (i.e., 2 mass% SPP, L/P = 0.50 mL/g, and Tween) corresponds to the intercept, that is, any other combination could lead to a decrease or increase of the predicted parameter value, depending on coefficient significance. For example, 2 mass% SPP, L/P = 0.50 mL/g, and Tween® 80 would give a predicted IST of 12.9 min (intercept), whereas if Pluronic was used instead of Tween, while maintaining 2 mass% SPP and L/P = 0.50 mL/g, the predicted IST would be 12.9 + 5.7 = 18.6 min (intercept + direct effect of Pluronic). NS denotes nonsignificance at the 0.05 level.
Figure 3CS and IST plotted against the L/P ratio used. CS is plotted with filled markers, and IST is plotted with unfilled markers. Error bars indicate standard deviations.
Figure 4Porosity of samples plotted against the L/P ratio used. Total porosity is plotted with filled markers, and macroporosity is plotted with unfilled markers. Error bars indicate standard deviation for n = 11 or 12.
Figure 5SEM micrographs of Tween samples (a) T‐0.37–1‐C, (b) T‐0.43–1‐C, (c) T‐0.45–2‐W, (d) T‐0.50–2‐W, (e) T‐0.43–3‐W, and (f) T‐0.47–3‐W. Inserts are showing a higher magnification of one sample with, and one without citric acid.
Figure 6SEM micrographs of Pluronic samples (a) P‐0.37–1‐C, (b) P‐0.43–1‐C, (c) P‐0.45–2‐W, (d) P‐0.50–2‐W, (e) P‐0.43–3‐W, and (f) P‐0.47–3‐W. Inserts are showing a higher magnification of one sample with, and one without citric acid.
Figure 7(a) Pore entrance size distribution as measured with MIP on samples T‐0.37–1‐C and T‐0.43–1‐C. (b) Comparison of the results of pore interconnections from image analysis (dotted lines) and MIP (solid lines) on samples T‐0.37–1‐C and T‐0.43–1‐C.
Figure 8CS and porosity results evaluated with Eq. (4). ln(σ/(ρ/ρ s)) (with m = 2) is plotted against P. The equation of the trend line is then given as y = −qP + ln(σ 0).
Summary of Constants Achieved from Evaluation of CS and Porosity Results with [Eq. (4); Figure 8]
| Sample |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 mass% SPP Tween® 80 | 50 | 3.9 |
| 2 and 3 mass% SPP Tween® 80 | 23 | 3.7 |
| 1 mass% SPP Pluronic® F‐127 | 92 | 5.6 |
| 2 and 3 mass% SPP Pluronic® F‐127 | 22 | 2.7 |