Literature DB >> 29147713

Variation of the bone forming ability with the physicochemical properties of calcium phosphate bone substitutes.

Rongquan Duan1, Davide Barbieri, Xiaoman Luo, Jie Weng, Chongyun Bao, Joost D de Bruijn, Huipin Yuan.   

Abstract

Because of their bioactive properties and chemical similarity to the inorganic component of bone, calcium phosphate (CaP) materials are widely used for bone regeneration. Six commercially available CaP bone substitutes (Bio-Oss, Actifuse, Bi-Ostetic, MBCP, Vitoss and chronOs) as well as two tricalcium phosphate (TCP) ceramics with either a micron-scale (TCP-B) or submicron-scale (TCP-S) surface structure are characterized and their bone forming potential is evaluated in a canine ectopic implantation model. After 12 weeks of implantation in the paraspinal muscle of four beagles, sporadic bone (0.1 ± 0.1%) is observed in two Actifuse implants (2/4), limited bone (2.1 ± 1.4%) in four MBCP implants (4/4) and abundant bone (21.6 ± 4.5%) is formed in all TCP-S implants (4/4). Bone is not observed in any of the Bio-Oss, Bi-Ostetic, Vitoss, chronOs and TCP-B implants (0/4). When correlating the bone forming potential with the physicochemical properties of each material, we observe that the physical characteristics (e.g. grain size and micropore size at the submicron scale) might be the dominant trigger of material directed bone formation via specific mechanotransduction, instead of protein adsorption, surface mineralization and calcium ion release.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29147713     DOI: 10.1039/c7bm00717e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomater Sci        ISSN: 2047-4830            Impact factor:   6.843


  6 in total

1.  Poly(Thioketal Urethane) Autograft Extenders in an Intertransverse Process Model of Bone Formation.

Authors:  Madison A P McGough; Stefanie M Shiels; Lauren A Boller; Katarzyna J Zienkiewicz; Craig L Duvall; Joseph C Wenke; Scott A Guelcher
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.845

2.  Individualized plasticity autograft mimic with efficient bioactivity inducing osteogenesis.

Authors:  Yan Wei; Guixin Zhu; Zifan Zhao; Chengcheng Yin; Qin Zhao; Hudi Xu; Jinyang Wang; Jinglun Zhang; Xiaoxin Zhang; Yufeng Zhang; Haibin Xia
Journal:  Int J Oral Sci       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 6.344

Review 3.  Bone Tissue Engineering in the Treatment of Bone Defects.

Authors:  Nannan Xue; Xiaofeng Ding; Rizhong Huang; Ruihan Jiang; Heyan Huang; Xin Pan; Wen Min; Jun Chen; Jin-Ao Duan; Pei Liu; Yiwei Wang
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-17

4.  Proteomics reveals differential adsorption of angiogenic platelet lysate proteins on calcium phosphate bone substitute materials.

Authors:  Richard da Costa Marques; Johanna Simon; Cyril d'Arros; Katharina Landfester; Kerstin Jurk; Volker Mailänder
Journal:  Regen Biomater       Date:  2022-07-05

5.  MagnetOs, Vitoss, and Novabone in a Multi-endpoint Study of Posterolateral Fusion: A True Fusion or Not?

Authors:  Lukas A van Dijk; Florence Barrère-de Groot; Antoine J W P Rosenberg; Matthew Pelletier; Chris Christou; Joost D de Bruijn; William R Walsh
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 1.723

6.  Efficacy of a Standalone Microporous Ceramic Versus Autograft in Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion: A Multicenter, Randomized, Intrapatient Controlled, Noninferiority Trial.

Authors:  A Mechteld Lehr; F Cumhur Oner; Diyar Delawi; Rebecca K Stellato; Eric A Hoebink; Diederik H R Kempen; Job L C van Susante; René M Castelein; Moyo C Kruyt
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 3.241

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.