| Literature DB >> 28973984 |
Ho-Kyung Lim1, Soo-Hwan Byun2, Jae-Man Woo3, Sae-Mi Kim4, Sung-Mi Lee5, Bong-Ju Kim6, Hyoun-Ee Kim7, Jung-Woo Lee8, Soung-Min Kim9, Jong-Ho Lee10,11.
Abstract
Magnesium (Mg) has the advantage of being resorbed in vivo, but its resorption rate is difficult to control. With uncontrolled resorption, Magnesium as a bone fixation material has minimal clinical value. During resorption not only is the strength rapidly weakened, but rapid formation of metabolite also occurs. In order to overcome these disadvantages, hydroxyapatite (HA) surface coating of pure magnesium plate was attempted in this study. Magnesium plates were inserted above the frontal bone of Sprague-Dawley rats in both the control group (Bare-Mg group) and the experimental group (HA-Mg group). The presence of inflammation, infection, hydrogen gas formation, wound dehiscence, and/or plate exposure was observed, blood tests were performed, and the resorption rate and tensile strength of the retrieved metal plates were measured. The HA-Mg group showed no gas formation or plate exposure until week 12. However, the Bare-Mg group showed consistent gas formation and plate exposure beginning in week 2. WBC (White Blood Cell), BUN (Blood Urea Nitrogen), Creatinine, and serum magnesium concentration levels were within normal range in both groups. AST (Aspartate Aminotransferase) and ALT (Alanine Aminotransferase) values, however, were above normal range in some animals of both groups. The HA-Mg group showed statistically significant advantage in resistance to degradation compared to the Bare-Mg group in weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12. Degradation of HA-Mg plates proceeded after week 12. Coating magnesium plates with hydroxyapatite may be a viable method to maintain their strength long enough to allow bony healing and to control the resorption rate during the initial period.Entities:
Keywords: biocompatibility; biocorrosion; hydroxyapatite; magnesium
Year: 2017 PMID: 28973984 PMCID: PMC5666955 DOI: 10.3390/ma10101149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Magnesium (Mg) plate specimens. (A) Design of the magnesium plates; (B) Hydroxyapatite-coated magnesium plate (HA-Mg group); (C) Uncoated magnesium plate (Bare-Mg group).
Figure 2Surgical procedure of plate insertion. (A) Shaving of hair; (B) Incision and dissection; (C) Sub-periosteal envelope formation; (D) Measuring of envelop size; (E) Insertion of magnesium plate.
Figure 3Clinical findings at sacrifice. (A) Normal; (B) Hydrogen gas formation; (C) Wound dehiscence and plate exposure.
Clinical findings at sacrifice.
| Time | Hydrogen Gas Formation | Plate Exposure | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HA-Mg | Bare-Mg | HA-Mg | Bare-Mg | |
| Week 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Week 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Week 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Week 8 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| Week 12 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 |
| Week 24 | 2 | - | 0 | - |
HA-Mg: HA-coated magnesium plate group, Bare-Mg: untreated magnesium plate group, Unit: number of animals.
Figure 4Retrieved magnesium plates: (A) Week 2 specimen of the Bare-Mg group, (B–G) Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 specimens of the HA-Mg group.
Figure 5Hematological findings (normal range highlighted in yellow). (A) White Blood Cell count (WBC); (B) Blood Magnesium level (Mg2+); (C) Blood urea nitrogen (BUN); (D) Serum creatinine; (E) Aspartate aminotransferase (AST); (F) Alanine aminotransferase (ALT).
Figure 6Degradation rate and tensile strength: (A) Degradation rate; (B) Tensile strength.
Figure 7Pattern of resorption of HA-Mg plates examined using micro-computed tomography. Resorption had pin-point-like appearance until week 8 (yellow circles). Resorption progressed rapidly beginning at week 12.
The resorption rate (%) of the HA-Mg group and Bare-Mg group using micro-computed tomography.
| Time | Week 2 | Week 4 | Week 6 | Week 8 | Week 12 | Week 24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HA-Mg | 2.99 ± 0.59 | 2.01 ± 2.77 | 3.33 ± 1.25 | 4.71 ± 1.49 | 8.58 ± 4.57 | 18.35 ± 3.03 |
| Bare-Mg | 18.10 ± 2.12 * | 20.00 ± 4.47 * | 21.40 ± 2.96 * | 21.71 ± 5.20 * | 26.70 ± 8.72 * | - |
Values presented as mean values of all samples of one time interval ± standard deviation. * Significant difference (p < 0.05) between the HA-Mg group and Bare-Mg group.
The results of the tensile strength (MPa) measurement.
| Time | Week 2 | Week 4 | Week 6 | Week 8 | Week 12 | Week 24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HA-Mg | 190.10 ± 17.46 | 193.89 ± 5.19 | 192.16 ± 7.82 | 193.77 ± 11.77 | 184.58 ± 35.69 | 122.78 ± 65.07 |
| Bare-Mg | 157.94 ± 6.18 * | 129.65 ± 13.70 * | 128.40 ± 14.58 * | 119.39 ± 24.15 * | 104.22 ± 31.17 * | - |
Values presented as the means of all samples of one time interval ± standard deviation. * Significant differences (p < 0.05) between the HA-Mg group and Bare-Mg group.