Boyko Gueorguiev1, Mark Lenz2,3. 1. AO Forschungsinstitut Davos, Clavadelerstraße 8, 7270, Davos, Schweiz. boyko.gueorguiev@aofoundation.org. 2. AO Forschungsinstitut Davos, Clavadelerstraße 8, 7270, Davos, Schweiz. 3. Klinik für Unfall‑, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 07747, Jena, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Materials with different characteristics are used for cement augmentation and as bone graft substitutes. OBJECTIVE: Cement augmentation and bone graft substitutes are the subject of current research. The evaluation of new knowledge allows its specific application. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Selective literature search and outline of experimental research results on cement augmentation and bone graft substitutes. RESULTS: Augmentation and bone graft substitutes are essential components of current trauma surgical procedures. Despite intensive research all materials have specific disadvantages. Cement augmentation of implants enhances not only the anchorage but also influences the failure mode. CONCLUSION: Cement augmentation has large potential especially in osteoporotic bone. In load-bearing regions acrylic-based cements remain the standard of choice. Ceramic cements are preferred in non-load-bearing areas. Their combination with resorbable metals offers still largely unexplored potential. Virtual biomechanics can help improve the targeted application of cement augmentation.
BACKGROUND: Materials with different characteristics are used for cement augmentation and as bone graft substitutes. OBJECTIVE: Cement augmentation and bone graft substitutes are the subject of current research. The evaluation of new knowledge allows its specific application. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Selective literature search and outline of experimental research results on cement augmentation and bone graft substitutes. RESULTS: Augmentation and bone graft substitutes are essential components of current trauma surgical procedures. Despite intensive research all materials have specific disadvantages. Cement augmentation of implants enhances not only the anchorage but also influences the failure mode. CONCLUSION: Cement augmentation has large potential especially in osteoporotic bone. In load-bearing regions acrylic-based cements remain the standard of choice. Ceramic cements are preferred in non-load-bearing areas. Their combination with resorbable metals offers still largely unexplored potential. Virtual biomechanics can help improve the targeted application of cement augmentation.
Authors: James W A Fletcher; Markus Windolf; Leonard Grünwald; R Geoff Richards; Boyko Gueorguiev; Peter Varga Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: James W A Fletcher; Markus Windolf; R Geoff Richards; Boyko Gueorguiev; Peter Varga Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Daniel Ciric; Dominic Mischler; Feras Qawasmi; Lisa Wenzel; R Geoff Richards; Boyko Gueorguiev; Markus Windolf; Peter Varga Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: James W A Fletcher; Markus Windolf; R Geoff Richards; Boyko Gueorguiev; Jan Buschbaum; Peter Varga Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: J Beckmann; R Springorum; E Vettorazzi; S Bachmeier; C Lüring; M Tingart; K Püschel; O Stark; J Grifka; T Gehrke; M Amling; M Gebauer Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Ladina Fliri; An Sermon; Dirk Wähnert; Werner Schmoelz; Michael Blauth; Markus Windolf Journal: J Biomater Appl Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 2.646