| Literature DB >> 35160495 |
Po-Sung Fu1,2, Jen-Chyan Wang1,3,4, Pei-Ling Lai3, Shih-Ming Liu5, Ya-Shun Chen5, Wen-Cheng Chen1,4,5, Chun-Cheng Hung1,3,4.
Abstract
This study evaluated the in vitro characterizations of biodegradable hydrogel beads with calcium phosphate bone cement (CPC). Commercial fast-setting CPC and hydrogel beads were compared with 25%-volume hydrogel in CPC (C/0.25) in vivo. The histological behaviors and absorption rates of CPC only, hydrogel beads, and hydrogel/CPC composite were measured and compared at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The results indicated that the C/0.25 composite can be molded and does not disintegrate when immersed in the solution, but this delays the phase transition of the CPC into the product in the early reaction process. The osteoprogenitor D1 cell affinity of the C/0.25 composite was equally competitive with that of the CPC-only. Adding hydrogel beads to CPC did not inhibit cell proliferation as well as differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells. In vivo histological evaluations did not indicate any significant difference in the CPC-only, hydrogel-only, and C/0.25 composite after 4 weeks of implantation; however, significantly less residue was observed in the C/0.25 composite relative to the CPC-only after 8 weeks. After 12 weeks of hydrogel beads implantation, the hydrogel degraded substantially, creating vacancies that were subsequently occupied by a large amount of soft tissue. New bone was formed in large quantities in the C/0.25; therefore, the C/0.25 composite is a promising option for a wide range of dental, craniofacial, and orthopedic applications.Entities:
Keywords: biodegradable; calcium phosphate bone cement (CPC); hydrogel; in vivo; osseointegration
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160495 PMCID: PMC8838511 DOI: 10.3390/polym14030505
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Comparison of moldability and disintegration resistance of fast-setting CPC-only and C/0.25 composite (cube size = 1 cm3).
Figure 2Microstructure analysis of fracture cross-section of CPC-only and C/0.25 composite at multiple immersion time points (arrow indicates hydrogel beads in CPC).
Figure 3Diffraction patterns of (a) CPC-only and (b) C/0.25 composite. DCPA, dicalcium phosphate anhydrous; TTCP, tetracalcium phosphate.
Figure 4(a) CPC-only spectrum analysis adopting transmission infrared mode starting from 400 cm−1, and (b) the total reflection mode spectra of the C/0.25 composite starting from 600 cm−1.
Figure 5Short-term cell attachment of CPC-only and C/0.25 composite co-cultured with osteoprogenitor D1 cells (arrows indicate D1 cells on the surface).
Figure 6(a) Cell proliferation, (b) D1 cell ALP activity, and (c) ALP qualitative staining of CPC-only and C/0.25 composite co-cultured with osteoprogenitor D1 cells (n = 3, * p < 0.05).
Results of the Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc in Figure 6a,b for the comparisons of cell metabolic activity and ALP, with groups that include the same letter denoting statistically nonsignificant differences and * representsa significantly difference.
| Two-Way ANOVA | Source | DF | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell Metabolic Activity | Model | 9 | 1.5989 | 0.1777 | 116.1440 | |
| Error | 80 | 0.1224 | 0.0015 | Prob. > F | ||
| C. Total | 89 | 1.7212 | <0.0001 * | |||
| groups | 1 | 0.1621 | 106.0013 | <0.0001 * | ||
| days[groups] | 8 | 1.4368 | 117.4119 | <0.0001 * | ||
| Group comparisons (Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different) | ||||||
| [CPC]10d | A | |||||
| [CPC]14d | A | |||||
| [CPC]7d | B | |||||
| [C/0.25]14d | B | |||||
| [C/0.25]10d | B | |||||
| [C/0.25]7d | C | |||||
| [CPC]4d | D | |||||
| [C/0.25]4d | D | E | ||||
| [CPC]1d | E | |||||
| [C/0.25]1d | F | |||||
| Groups are significantly different at | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ALP | Model | 9 | 36.6062 | 4.0674 | 141.8610 | |
| Error | 77 | 2.2077 | 0.0287 | Prob. > F | ||
| C. Total | 86 | 38.8139 | - | <0.0001 * | ||
| groups | 1 | 0.4335 | 15.1193 | 0.0002 * | ||
| days[groups] | 8 | 36.0612 | 157.2173 | <0.0001 * | ||
| Group comparisons (Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different) | ||||||
| [C/0.25]14d | A | |||||
| [CPC]7d | A | |||||
| [CPC]14d | A | |||||
| [CPC]10d | A | |||||
| [C/0.25]10d | A | |||||
| [CPC]4d | B | |||||
| [C/0.25]7d | B | |||||
| [C/0.25]4d | B | |||||
| [C/0.25]1d | C | |||||
| [CPC]1d | C | |||||
| Groups are significantly different at | ||||||
Figure 7Histological observation (a) and partial enlarged image (b) of CPC-only and C/0.25 composite after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of implantation. Red arrow: blood vessels; yellow arrow: osteocyte; orange arrow: trabecular bone; blue arrow: osteoblasts; pink arrow: osteoclasts; white arrow: haversian canal.
Figure 8A quantified absorption rate of CPC-only and C/0.25 composite after 12 weeks of implantation (red dotted line indicates an original bone defect, which is a circular implant with a diameter of 4 mm; yellow range indicates the area of the residual implant, and the number indicates absorption).