Novel injectable and self-setting composite materials for bone defect repair
Source abstract
Abstract
Although calcium sulfate bone cements possess favorable characteristics of excellent clinical handling and osteoconductivity, the rapid degradation and poor bioactivity limit their wide applications. This study reports a type of novel injectable and self-setting composite materials for bone defect repair. Magnesium substituted tricalcium phosphate nanoparticles (43.8±9.0 nm) and calcium sulfate hemihydrate micro-size particles (5–21 µm) were mixed with a polyvinyl alcohol solution with optimal compositions to obtain the composite materials, which showed reasonable initial setting time (11.7–19.2 min) and suitable compressed strength (2.28–6.33 MPa). By utilizing magnesium powder as a porogen, macro-pores (>100 µm) together with micro-pores were created in the final product after setting. In addition, MC3T3E1 cells extended well and exhibited numerous lamellipodia and long filopodia when cultured with the composite materials, indicating that they had no cytotoxicity. The in vivo results indicated that the injectable composite materials could achieve bone defect repair, when implanted in beagle femoral condyle defects for 10 months. Our results show that the new injectable composite materials are biocompatible and biodegradable, which possess great potential for bone defect repair.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Polymer Surface Interaction Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. Bohner M. Resorbable biomaterials as bone graft substitutes. Mater Today, 2010, 13: 24–3010.1016/S1369-7021(10)70014-6 ↗
2. LeGeros RZ. Calcium phosphate-based osteoinductive materials. Chem Rev, 2008, 108: 4742–475310.1021/cr800427g ↗
3. Larsson S, Bauer TW. Use of injectable calcium phosphate cement for fracture fixation: A review. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2002, 395: 23–3210.1097/00003086-200202000-00004 ↗
4. Liu Y, Zheng Y, Hayes B. Degradable, absorbable or resorbable—what is the best grammatical modifier for an implant that is eventually absorbed by the body? Sci China Mater, 2017, 60: 377–39110.1007/s40843-017-9023-9 ↗
5. Low KL, Tan SH, Zein SHS, et al. Calcium phosphate-based composites as injectable bone substitute materials: A review. J Biomed Mater Res, 2010, 94: 273
6. Hao F, Qin L, Liu J, et al. Assessment of calcium sulfate hemihydrate-tricalcium silicate composite for bone healing in a rabbit femoral condyle model. Mater Sci Eng-C, 2018, 88: 53–6010.1016/j.msec.2018.02.024 ↗
7. Moore WR, Graves SE, Bain GI. Synthetic bone graft substitutes. ANZ J Surg, 2001, 71: 354–36110.1046/j.1440-1622.2001.02128.x ↗
8. Chow LC. Solubility of calcium phosphates. Monogl Oral Sci Basel Karger, 2001, 18: 94–11110.1159/000061650 ↗
9. Goto T, Kojima T, Iijima T, et al. Resorption of synthetic porous hydroxyapatite and replacement by newly formed bone. J Orthop Sci, 2001, 6: 444–44710.1007/s007760170013 ↗
10. Hibi A, Ishikawa T, Asano M, et al. A study of failed implantation of hydroxyapatite for benign bone tumor. Orthoped Surg, 1994, 45: 1423–1428
11. Bell WH. Resorption characteristics of bone and bone substitutes. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1964, 17: 650–65710.1016/0030-4220(64)90372-X ↗
12. Wang ML, Massie J, Perry A, et al. A rat osteoporotic spine model for the evaluation of bioresorbable bone cements. Spine J, 2007, 7: 466–47410.1016/j.spinee.2006.06.400 ↗
13. Masterman D. Ksp determination of calcium sulfate. J Chem Educ, 1987, 64: 408–40910.1021/ed064p408 ↗
14. Ferguson J, Athanasou N, Diefenbeck M, et al. Radiographic and histological analysis of a synthetic bone graft substitute eluting gentamicin in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. J Bone Jt Infect, 2019, 4: 76–8410.7150/jbji.31592 ↗
15. Zhang T, Zhou W, Jia Z, et al. Polydopamine-assisted functionalization of heparin and vancomycin onto microarc-oxidized 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V for improved hemocompatibility, osteogenic and anti-infection potencies. Sci China Mater, 2018, 61: 579–59210.1007/s40843-017-9208-x ↗
16. Gu X, Wang F, Xie X, et al. In vitro and in vivo studies on asextruded Mg-5.25wt.%Zn-0.6wt.%Ca alloy as biodegradable metal. Sci China Mater, 2018, 61: 619–62810.1007/s40843-017-9205-x ↗
17. Park JW, Kim YJ, Jang JH, et al. Osteoblast response to magnesium ion-incorporated nanoporous titanium oxide surfaces. Clin Oral ImPlants Res, 2010, 21: 1278–128710.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01944.x ↗
18. Hung CC, Chaya A, Liu K, et al. The role of magnesium ions in bone regeneration involves the canonical Wnt signaling pathway. Acta Biomater, 2019, 98: 246–25510.1016/j.actbio.2019.06.001 ↗
19. Zhang X, Zu H, Zhao D, et al. Ion channel functional protein kinase TRPM7 regulates Mg ions to promote the osteoinduction of human osteoblast via PI3K pathway: In vitro simulation of the bone-repairing effect of Mg-based alloy implant. Acta Biomater, 2017, 63: 369–38210.1016/j.actbio.2017.08.051 ↗
20. Díaz-Tocados JM, Herencia C, Martínez-Moreno JM, et al. Magnesium chloride promotes osteogenesis through Notch signaling activation and expansion of mesenchymal stem cells. Sci Rep, 2017, 7: 783910.1038/s41598-017-08379-y ↗
21. Tripp RA, Alvarez R, Anderson B, et al. Bioconjugated nanoparticle detection of respiratory syncytial virus infection. Int J NanoMed, 2007, 2: 117–12410.2147/nano.2007.2.1.117 ↗
22. Wang P, Zhao L, Liu J, et al. Bone tissue engineering via nano-structured calcium phosphate biomaterials and stem cells. Bone Res, 2014, 2: 1401710.1038/boneres.2014.17 ↗
23. Zhou C, Xie P, Chen Y, et al. Synthesis, sintering and characterization of porous nano-structured CaP bioceramics prepared by a two-step sintering method. Ceramics Int, 2015, 41: 4696–470510.1016/j.ceramint.2014.12.018 ↗
24. Fischer J, Prosenc MH, Wolff M, et al. Interference of magnesium corrosion with tetrazolium-based cytotoxicity assays. Acta Biomater, 2010, 6: 1813–182310.1016/j.actbio.2009.10.020 ↗
25. Matsunaga K, Kubota T, Toyoura K, et al. First-principles calculations of divalent substitution of Ca2+ in tricalcium phosphates. Acta Biomater, 2015, 23: 329–33710.1016/j.actbio.2015.05.014 ↗
26. Polat S, Sayan P. Effects of tricarballylic acid on phase transformation of calcium sulfate hemihydrate to the dihydrate form. Cryst Res Technol, 2017, 52: 160039510.1002/crat.201600395 ↗
27. Liu X, Wang XM, Chen Z, et al. Injectable bone cement based on mineralized collagen. J Biomed Mater Res, 2010, 94B: 72–7910.1002/jbm.b.31625 ↗
28. Laurencin CT, Ambrosio AMA, Borden MD, et al. Tissue engineering: orthopedic applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 1999, 1: 19–4610.1146/annurev.bioeng.1.1.19 ↗
29. Yu B, Han K, Ma H, et al. Treatment of tibial plateau fractures with high strength injectable calcium sulphate. Int Orthop (SICOT), 2009, 33: 1127–113310.1007/s00264-008-0611-2 ↗
30. Saleh AT, Ling LS, Hussain R. Injectable magnesium-doped brushite cement for controlled drug release application. J Mater Sci, 2016, 51: 7427–743910.1007/s10853-016-0017-2 ↗
31. Lewis G. Injectable bone cements for use in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: state-of-the-art review. J Biomed Mater Res, 2006, 76B: 456–46810.1002/jbm.b.30398 ↗
32. Baino F, Fiume E. Mechanical characterization of 45S5 bioactive glass-derived scaffolds. Mater Lett, 2019, 245: 14–1710.1016/j.matlet.2019.02.086 ↗
33. Li X, Niu Y, Guo H, et al. Preparation and osteogenic properties of magnesium calcium phosphate biocement scaffolds for bone regeneration. J Inst, 2013, 8: C07010
34. Zhang J, Liu W, Schnitzler V, et al. Calcium phosphate cements for bone substitution: Chemistry, handling and mechanical properties. Acta Biomater, 2014, 10: 1035–104910.1016/j.actbio.2013.11.001 ↗
35. Wagoner Johnson AJ, Herschler BA. A review of the mechanical behavior of CaP and CaP/polymer composites for applications in bone replacement and repair. Acta Biomater, 2011, 7: 16–3010.1016/j.actbio.2010.07.012 ↗
36. Loh QL, Choong C. Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: Role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng Part B-Rev, 2013, 19: 485–50210.1089/ten.teb.2012.0437 ↗
37. Chen R, Hunt JA. Biomimetic materials processing for tissue-engineering processes. J Mater Chem, 2007, 17: 3974–397910.1039/b706765h ↗
38. Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials, 2005, 26: 5474–549110.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002 ↗
39. Hulbert SF, Young FA, Mathews RS, et al. Potential of ceramic materials as permanently implantable skeletal prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res, 1970, 4: 433–45610.1002/jbm.820040309 ↗
40. Babaie E, Lin B, Bhaduri SB. A new method to produce macro-porous Mg-phosphate bone growth substitutes. Mater Sci Eng-C, 2017, 75: 602–60910.1016/j.msec.2017.02.111 ↗
41. Cui W, Song Q, Su H, et al. Synergistic effects of Mg-substitution and particle size of chicken eggshells on hydrothermal synthesis of biphasic calcium phosphate nanocrystals. J Mater Sci Technol, 2020, 36: 27–3610.1016/j.jmst.2019.04.038 ↗
42. Xiao Y, Yin Q, Wang L, et al. Macro-porous calcium phosphate scaffold with collagen and growth factors for periodontal bone regeneration in dogs. Ceramics Int, 2015, 41: 995–100310.1016/j.ceramint.2014.09.020 ↗
43. Orsini G, Ricci J, Scarano A, et al. Bone-defect healing with calcium-sulfate particles and cement: An experimental study in rabbit. J Biomed Mater Res, 2004, 68B: 199–20810.1002/jbm.b.20012 ↗