| Literature DB >> 35888086 |
Zhenchuan Han1,2,3, Bo Wang4, Bowen Ren1, Yihao Liu2, Nan Zhang3, Zheng Wang2, Jianheng Liu2, Keya Mao2.
Abstract
Magnesium potassium phosphate cement (MKPC) has attracted considerable attention as a bone regeneration material. However, there are only a few reports on its biomechanical properties. To evaluate the biomechanical properties of MKPC, we compared the mechanical parameters of pedicle screws enhanced with either MKPC or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement. The results show that the maximum pull-out force of the pedicle screws was 417.86 ± 55.57 and 444.43 ± 19.89 N after MKPC cement setting for 30 min and 12 h, respectively, which was better than that of the PMMA cement. In fatigue tests, the maximum pull-out force of the MKPC cement group was 435.20 ± 7.96 N, whereas that of the PMMA cement in the control group was 346.80 ± 7.66 N. Furthermore, the structural characterization analysis of the MKPC cement revealed that its microstructure after solidification was an irregular tightly packed crystal, which improved the mechanical strength of the cement. The maximum exothermic temperature of the MKPC reaction was 45.55 ± 1.35 °C, the coagulation time was 7.89 ± 0.37 min, and the compressive strength was 48.29 ± 4.76 MPa, all of which meet the requirements of clinical application. In addition, the MKPC cement did not significantly inhibit cell proliferation or increase apoptosis, thus indicating good biocompatibility. In summary, MKPC exhibited good biomechanical properties, high initial strength, good biocompatibility, and low exothermic reaction temperature, demonstrating an excellent application potential in the field of orthopedics.Entities:
Keywords: biomechanical test; characterization; cytotoxicity; magnesium potassium phosphate cement; pedicle screws
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888086 PMCID: PMC9320010 DOI: 10.3390/life12070997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Life (Basel) ISSN: 2075-1729
Figure 1Schematic diagrams of the manufacturing process for magnesium potassium phosphate cement.
Biomechanical test group.
| Test Grouping | Cement Setting Time | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 min | 12 h | 24 h | 72 h | |
| Pull-out testing ( | M/P | M/P | M/P | M/P |
| Torsion testing ( | M/P | |||
| Fatigue testing ( | M/P | |||
| Vertebral body testing ( | M/P | |||
M: pedicle screws with MKPC. P: pedicle screws with PMMA cement.
Figure 2(A) Screw pull-out test setup. (B) Screw torsion test setup. (C) Screw fatigue test setup. (D) Screw pull-out test device in vertebral body.
The compressive strength, exothermic temperature, and setting time of the MKPC.
| Samples ( | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compressive strength (MPa) | 56.04 | 43.10 | 46.06 | 44.52 | 50.76 | 49.23 | 48.29 ± 4.76 |
| Exothermic temperature (°C) | 45.20 | 43.70 | 47.50 | 44.90 | 46.70 | 45.30 | 45.55 ± 1.35 |
| Setting time (min) | 7.58 | 7.83 | 8.50 | 8.17 | 7.58 | 7.67 | 7.89 ± 0.37 |
Figure 3X-ray diffraction patterns of the MKPC samples after setting for 24 h. The phases were identified according to the following PDF numbers: MgKPO4(H2O)6 (JCPDS PDF: 75-1076) and MgO (JCPDS PDF: 45-0946).
Figure 4SEM images of hardened cement at different magnifications. (A) The MKPC cement exhibited a microstructure with the interlocked flaky crystals and micropores; (B) The excess unreacted MgO particles were embedded in the MKPC cement; (C,D) The PMMA cement was in the form of dense xerogel with dispersed fine particles; (E) The MKPC cement was embedded into the Sawbones pores and achieved an anchoring effect; (F) The PMMA cement was not well embedded in the Sawbones pores, and the anchoring effect is insufficient.
Figure 5Effects of the MKPC cement on cell proliferation and apoptosis in vitro. (A) The results of the CCK-8 experiment provide the cell proliferation in different concentrations of extracts, and the results were not statistically different (p > 0.05). (B) The cell was co-cultured with cement extract solution for 24 h, with no significant difference in apoptosis and death percentage (p > 0.05).
Figure 6In vitro biomechanical study of screw strengthening effect of MKPC cement. (A) The load–displacement curve of the pull-out force of the MKPC cement-reinforced screws was similar at different time points of cement curing. (B) The pull-out resistance of the PMMA cement-reinforced screws gradually increased with time, and the mechanical curve tended to be stable after the cement curing for 24 h. (C) The pull-out resistance of MKPC cement-reinforced screws was better than that of PMMA cement at 30 min and 12 h, and the two tended to be similar after 24 h. (D) There was no significant difference between the two types of bone cement in the torsion resistance of reinforced screws (p > 0.05). (E) Load–displacement curve after cyclic loading of the screw. (F) After cyclic loading of the screws, the pull-out resistance of the screws strengthened with MKPC cement was significantly better than that of the PMMA cement group (p < 0.01). (G) Load–displacement curves of pull-out resistance of the cement-enhanced pedicle screws in the vertebral body. (H) There was no statistical difference between the two kinds of bone cement in the anti-pulling ability of the screw in the vertebral body (p > 0.05). (ns: p > 0.05; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ****: p < 0.0001).