| Literature DB >> 35510175 |
Öznur Demir-Oğuz1,2, Aldo R Boccaccini3, Dagnija Loca1,2.
Abstract
Out of the wide range of calcium phosphate (CaP) biomaterials, calcium phosphate bone cements (CPCs) have attracted increased attention since their discovery in the 1980s due to their valuable properties such as bioactivity, osteoconductivity, injectability, hardening ability through a low-temperature setting reaction and moldability. Thereafter numerous researches have been performed to enhance the properties of CPCs. Nonetheless, low mechanical performance of CPCs limits their clinical application in load bearing regions of bone. Also, the in vivo resorption and replacement of CPC with new bone tissue is still controversial, thus further improvements of high clinical importance are required. Bioactive glasses (BGs) are biocompatible and able to bond to bone, stimulating new bone growth while dissolving over time. In the last decades extensive research has been performed analyzing the role of BGs in combination with different CaPs. Thus, the focal point of this review paper is to summarize the available research data on how injectable CPC properties could be improved or affected by the addition of BG as a secondary powder phase. It was found that despite the variances of setting time and compressive strength results, desirable injectable properties of bone cements can be achieved by the inclusion of BGs into CPCs. The published data also revealed that the degradation rate of CPCs is significantly improved by BG addition. Moreover, the presence of BG in CPCs improves the in vitro osteogenic differentiation and cell response as well as the tissue-material interaction in vivo.Entities:
Keywords: Bioactive glass; Bone regeneration; Calcium phosphate; Calcium phosphate bone cements; Injectable bone cements
Year: 2022 PMID: 35510175 PMCID: PMC9048153 DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.04.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioact Mater ISSN: 2452-199X
Fig. 1Brief overview of the improvement approaches put forward for calcium phosphate cements, created by using BioRender.com.
Fig. 2Diagram for the basic BG composition and its bone-bonding region [49] (Reprinted from the reference with permission).
Advantages and disadvantages of CaP bone cements.
| Application as minimally invasive surgery |
| Easy shaping – injectable, moldable and sets under physiological conditions |
| Bioactivity and Biocompatibility |
| Could be used as a local delivery vehicle for drugs/ions/therapeutic factors |
| Could be used as a fixative for implant to eliminate the risk of fracture displacement or implant loosening |
| Low radiopacity – which makes it hard to detect in radiography fluoroscopy after surgery |
| Low mechanical properties – lead to brittle fractures or plastic deformations (which could further cause inflammation) |
| Rapid (for calcium sulfate-based cements) degradation – could cause local toxicity and mechanical instability at injection side (which could further cause insufficient or no bone ingrowth) |
| Relatively low bioactivity - could result in fibrous tissue formation |
Fig. 3Properties of an ideal injectable bone cement, created by using BioRender.com.
Fig. 4Time-dependent development of linear viscoelastic properties of brushite-forming cement [72] (Reprinted from the reference with permission).
Fig. 5Interfacial reactions involved in forming a bond between BG and bone [106] (Reprinted from the reference with permission).
Fig. 6(a) The number of publications performed until January 2022 with the keywords “calcium phosphate cements” or “calcium phosphate’, “bioactive glass” or “bioglass” and “injectable”, (b) % of type of publication found with these keywords and (c) distribution of the publications regarding the scope on Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases.
Injectable BG incorporated CaP cement composites. Their physicochemical analysis results, in vitro and in vivo results, and highlights of the findings.
| Year | CaP Type | BG content | Liquid phase | P/L ratio | Injectability | Setting time | Mechanical properties | Radiopacity | In vitro response | In vivo response | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | teOCP | 58S BG nanoparticles | 5 wt% alginate, 2 wt% chitosan solution and DMEM | 0.39 | – | – | – | Yes | – | Bone ingrowth in femoral cavity of OVXed rat model | [ |
| 2013 | 85% α -TCP | Biosilicate® parent glass, up to 50 wt% | 2% Na2HPO4 | – | – | Around 18min for 50% BG composite | – | – | BG incorporation, in CPC/PLGA composites; increased degradation rate, rapidly transformation in PBS with interconnected pores and macroporosity | – | [ |
| 2013 | Equal molar ratio of TECP and DCPA | Bioglass 45S5; 10 and 20 wt% | Potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) | 2.0 (g/ml) | 10–20% improved injectability | 21 and 25 min | BG wt. 20% reached 26 MPa and 40 MPa after soaking in SBF for 1 and 7days | – | Bone like apatite structure detected after soaking in SBF for 7 days. | Higher bone forming efficiency. | [ |
| 2014 | TTCP, DCPD, CSD | BG; 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% | 2% chitosan, 4% HPMC and 10% citric acid | 1.8/1 | – | 24.67 ± 2.08 min for 30% BG | 15.04 ± 2.4 MPa for 30% BG | – | Increased apatite formation. | Higher concentration of bone volume for 30% BG incorporated samples | [ |
| 2015 | α-TCP | Mesoporous BG; up to 10% | 2.5 wt% Na2HPO4 | 1.54 (g/ml) | higher injectability compared to pure CPC | 25 min for 10% BG | 24 MPa for 10%BG after soaking in SBF for 7days | – | Nanotopology similar to that of pure CPC after soaking in SBF for 7 days | Increased bone formation with BG incorporation | [ |
| 2016 | CPC | 45S5 bioactive glass; 20 wt% | 1 M dipotassium phosphate and 1 M monopotassium phosphate solutions | 2 | – | – | – | – | Improved cell adhesion, proliferation and differentiation of osteoblast from BG incorporated composites | – | [ |
| 2017 | α-CSH | Mesoporous BG; SiO2/CaO: 80/20 mol% | Distilled water | 2.5 (g/ml) | ‘Suitable injectability’ | 1 h at RT | 18.1 ± 0.8 MPa | Adequate | Uniform HA crystals on the surface after 1 week | – | [ |
| 2018 | β-TCP/MCPM | mesoporous silica particles; 5 wt% | PEG 400/H2O | 2.5 | 50% increased injectability (time dependent) | 30 min | 2.81 ± 0.45 MPa | – | Homogenous layer of apatite formation | – | [ |
| 2019 | β-TCP/MCPM | 45S5 BG powder; 5 to 50 (v/v) | 0.5 M citrate ion | 0.5 (v/w) | – | Ranged from 5 to 12 min | ∼10 MPa | – | No cytotoxicity | Increased bone formation with BG incorporation | [ |
| 2019 | MPC | Borosilicate glass (21.5–50%) | Distilled water | 5.0 (g/ml) | – | Increased from 6 min to 16 min | Decreased from 13.5 MPa to 11 MPa | Yes | Reduced wash-out with BG incorporation | Increased of new bone formation with BG incorporated sample | [ |
| 2021 | α-TCP/gypsum | BG powder (75% SiO2 and 25% CaO (75S25C)); 5 to 20 wt% | 10 wt% γ-PGA | 1.67 (g/ml) | ∼90% | Ranged from 13.2 to 17.3 min for initial setting time | Ranged from 30.17 to 16.75 MPa | – | Increased apatite formation | – | [ |
| 2021 | β-TCP | Mg and Sr doped BG nanospheres (0–70%) | 0.25 M Na2HPO4 | 0.3 (ml/g) | – | For 50% BG incorporated samples; initial setting time: 8.3 ± 0.6 final setting time: 15.2 ± 0.7 min | Ranged from 2.91 MPa to 8.83 MPa | – | Reduced wash-out | – | [ |
This number does not have the unit provided in the article, teOCP- trace elements-multidoped octacalcium phosphate, BG-bioactive glass, DCPA-dicalcium phosphate anhydrous, β-TCP- β-tricalcium phosphate, CPC – calcium phosphate cement, MCPM-monocalcium phosphate monohydrate, BVF- bone volume fraction, RMVF- remaining material volume fraction, α-TCP- α-tricalcium phosphate, TECP- tetra calcium phosphate, γ-PGA-poly-γ-glutamic acid, α-CSH - α-calcium sulfate hemihydrate, C3S - tricalcium silicate, CMC – carboxy methyl cellulose, K2HPO4 - dipotassium phosphate, SBF – simulated body fluid, A-V-C3S – amine-grafted and vaterite-contained tricalcium silicate, MPC – magnesium phosphate cement.
Fig. 7How BG incorporation affects the injectable CaP cements. Data (final setting time of the composites) were taken from the references indicated in Table 2. The red data points indicate the setting time of BG-free CaP cement. Red dotted line at 15 min represents the clinically approved setting time. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 8SEM images of fabricated bioactive glasses in the study of (A) Renno et al. [116], (B) Sadiasa e t al. [118], (C) and optical microscopy images of (D) Dadkhah et al. [121] and Hasan et al. [123] (Reproduced from the references with permission).
Fig. 9How BG incorporation affects the injectable CaP composites. Data were taken from the references in Table 2. The red data points indicate the compressive strength of BG-free CPC. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 10Morphological images of BG incorporated CaP cement after setting. (A) Yang et al. [115] showed how BG nanoparticles and porous CaP microspheres placed inside hydrogel complex. (B) Renno et al. [116] showed the composite micrograph, yellow arrow represents the BG and arrow head represents the PLGA-microparticles. (C) Yu et al. [117] showed the micrograph of 20 wt% BG incorporated CaP cement composite. (D) Sadiasa et al. [118] showed the micrograph of 30 wt% BG incorporated CaP cement composite. (E) El-Fiqi et al. [119] showed the micrograph of 10 wt% BG incorporated CaP cement composite. (F) Dadkhah et al. [121] showed the homogenous distribution of cement calcium sulfate hemihydrate, mesoporous particles and glass-ceramic particles. (G) Hasan et al. [123] showed greyscale 3D reconstructed view of composite sample from micro-CT scans showing distribution of microspheres with in the brushite cement, yellow arrows indicate microspheres position inside the CaP cement. (H) Li et al. [124] showed the morphology of BG particles which were embedded and dispersed in the CaP paste as the yellow arrows indicated. (I) Pu et al. [125] showed the micrograph of 5 wt% BG incorporated CaP composite (Reproduced from the references with permission). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Data on released Si4+ ions from BG incorporated injectable CaP cement composites, according to literature.
| BG content (wt.%) | Incubation solution | Incubation time | Released Si4+ ions | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.8 | DMEM, pH 7.4 | 12 h | 42 ppm | [ |
| 96 h | 47 ppm | |||
| 10 | Tris Buffer, pH 7.4 | Day 1 | 1.5 mM | [ |
| Day 14 | 2 mM | |||
| 5 | SBF, pH 7.4 | Day 1 | 20 mg/L | [ |
| Day 14 | 170 mg/L | |||
| 25 | SBF, pH 7.4 | Day 1 | 0.3 mg/L | [ |
| Day 7 | 0.6 mg/L | |||
| 5 | PBS, pH 7.4 | Day 1 | 50 ppm | [ |
| Day 21 | 70 ppm | |||
| 10 | Day 1 | 58 ppm | ||
| Day 21 | 75 ppm | |||
| 20 | Day 1 | 60 ppm | ||
| Day 21 | 80 ppm |
Indicates that data was taken from the graphical representation of the publications. Therefore, values are representing the approximate amounts of released Si4+ ions. BG – bioactive glass, DMEM – Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium, SBF – Simulated body fluid, PBS – Phosphate buffer saline, h – hour, Ref – references.
In vivo experimentation overview performed by an injectable BG incorporated CaP cement composite.
| Species | Defect Details | Implantation Time | Analysis Techniques | Examination | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Femoral bone marrow cavity, 1.2-mm diameter holes | 1, 2, 4 and 8 weeks | DXA | BMD | [ | |
| Radiographic and μCT | Bone maturation corresponding to the appearance of injected implant | ||||
| Histological analysis | Bone-material interaction | ||||
| New bone ingrowth | |||||
| Biodegradation | |||||
| Femoral condyle 6 mm diameter and 10 mm height) | 4 and 12 weeks | Macroscopic evaluation | Degree of specimen incorporation and tissue reactions adjacent to the specimens | [ | |
| μCT | In vivo resorption of the implant | ||||
| RMVF | |||||
| Histological analysis | BVF | ||||
| Bone formation | |||||
| Biodegradation | |||||
| subcutaneous tissues | 2 weeks | Histological analysis | Biocompatibility | [ | |
| Bone formation | |||||
| calvarial bone defects with 6-mm diameter | 6 weeks | Tissue-material interaction | |||
| Biodegradation | |||||
| Femur heads 6 mm diameter and 5 mm thickness | 4 and 12 weeks | μCT | Quantitative new bone formation | [ | |
| Tissue-material interaction | |||||
| Histological analysis | Bone formation | ||||
| Biodegradation | |||||
| Femoral condyle 5 mm diameter and 5–10 mm depth | 4 and 8 weeks | X-ray and μCT | Biodegradation | [ | |
| Bone regeneration | |||||
| Histological analysis | Bone formation | ||||
| Tissue-material interaction | |||||
| Femoral bone 4 mm diameter | 3 months | μCT | Tissue-material interaction | [ | |
| Quantitative bone formation | |||||
| Histological analysis and microscopic evaluation | Bone formation | ||||
| Biodegradation |
DXA– dual energy x-ray analysis, BMD – bone marrow density, μCT– micro computerized tomography, RMVF – the residual material volume fraction, BMF – bone volume fraction.