Distribution & Access For Publication Downloads News About Us Contact Us
Paper Titles
Cell Behaviour of Calcium Phosphate Bone Cement Modified with a Protein-Based Foaming Agent
p.117
Preparation and Characterization of New Self-Setting Calcium Phosphate Cements Based on Alkali Containing Orthophosphates
p.121
The Mechanical Properties and Microstructures of Cement Formed from Pyrophosphoric and Orthophosphoric Acids
p.125
Improvement of Porosity of a Calcium Phosphate Cement by Incorporation of Biodegradable Polymer Microspheres
p.129
Bioactive Bone Cement Composed of Crystallized Glass Beads and PMMA: Evaluation of Degradation by an In Vivo Aging Test
p.133
Cement from Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite: Effect of Sulphate Ions
p.137
Effect of the Composition in β-TCP-MCPM Bone Cement Containing Dense ß-TCP Granules
p.141
A Novel Biomineral Water Based Dental Cement
p.145
Analysis of the Resorption of Calcium Phosphate Cement by Using High-Resolution X-Ray 3-D CT
p.149

Bioactive Bone Cement Composed of Crystallized Glass Beads and PMMA: Evaluation of Degradation by an In Vivo Aging Test

Article Preview

Abstract:

A new bioactive bone cement (cGBC) consisting of crystallized MgO-CaO-SiO2-P2O5 glass beads and high-molecular-weight polymethyl methacrylate (hPMMA) has been developed to overcome the degradation seen with a previously reported cement (GBC) consisting of MgO-CaO-SiO2-P2O5-CaF2 glass beads and hPMMA. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the degradation of cGBC using an in vivo aging test, and to compare the degradation of cGBC with that of GBC. Hardened rectangular specimens (20x4x3mm) were prepared from both cements. Their initial bending strengths were measured using the three-point bending method. GBC and cGBC specimens were then implanted into the dorsal subcutaneous tissue of rats, removed after 6 or 12 months, and tested for bending strength. The initial bending strengths (MPa) of GBC and cGBC were 141.9±1.8 and 144.4±2.4, respectively, while at 6 months they were 109.1±2.6 and 114.1±4.9, and at 12 months they were 109.1±3.2 and 113.1±3.3, respectively. Although the difference in initial bending strengths was not significant, the bending strength of cGBC was significantly higher than that of GBC at 6 and 12 months, indicating that cGBC is more resistant to cement degradation. The bending strengths of both GBC and cGBC decreased significantly from 0 to 6 months but did not change significantly thereafter. Thus, degradation of cGBC and GBC does not appear to continue after 6 months. We believe that cGBC and GBC are strong enough for use under weight-bearing conditions and that their mechanical strength (especially that of cGBC) is retained in vivo.

You might also be interested in these eBooks
Bioceramics 17 View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 284-286)

Pages:

133-136

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.284-286.133

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

April 2005

Authors:

S. Shinzato, Takashi Nakamura, Koji Goto, Tadashi Kokubo

Keywords:

Aging Test, Bend Strength, Bioactive Bone Cement, Crystallized Glass, Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions:

Request Permissions

References

[1] Nakamura T, Kato H, Okada Y, Shinzato S, Kawanabe K, Tamura J, Kokubo T. Bioceramics Vol 13. Trans Tech Publications Ltd; 2000. pp.661-664.

Google Scholar

[2] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. Bioceramics Vol 13. Trans Tech Publications Ltd; 2000. pp.665-668.

Google Scholar

[3] Shinzato S, Kobayashi M, Mousa WF, Kamimura M, Neo M, Kitamura Y, Kokubo T, Nakamura T. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 51: 258-272.

DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(200008)51:2<258::aid-jbm15>3.0.co;2-s

Google Scholar

[4] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 54: 491-500.

Google Scholar

[5] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 55: 277-284.

Google Scholar

[6] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 56: 452-458.

Google Scholar

[7] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Tamura J, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 56: 571-577.

Google Scholar

[8] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. J Biomed Mater Res 2002; 59: 225-232.

Google Scholar

[9] Kamimura M, Tamura J, Shinzato S, Kawanabe K, Neo M, Kokubo T, Nakamura T. J Biomed Mater Res 2002; 61: 564-571.

DOI: 10.1002/jbm.10214

Google Scholar

[10] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Kawanabe K, Kokubo T. J Biomed Mater Res 2003; 65B: 262-271.

DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.10008

Google Scholar

[11] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Kawanabe K, Kokubo T. J Biomed Mater Res 2004. 2. 15; 68B: 132-139.

Google Scholar

[12] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Ando K, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. J Biomed Mater Res 2002; 60: 556-563.

Google Scholar

[13] Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. J Biomed Mater Res 2002; 60: 585-591.

Google Scholar

[14] Kitsugi T, Yamamuro T, Nakamura T Kakutani Y, Hayashi T, Ito S, Kokubo T, Takagi M, Shibuya T. J Biomed Mater Res 1987; 21: 467-484.

DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820210407

Google Scholar

[15] Nakamura T, Yamamuro Y, Higashi S, Kokubo T, Ito S. J Biomed Mater Res 1985; 19: 685-698.

Google Scholar

[16] Kokubo T, Ito S, Shigematsu M, Sakka S, Yamamuro T. J Mater Sci 1985; 20: 2001-(2004).

Google Scholar

Scientific.Net is a registered brand of Trans Tech Publications Ltd
© 2024 by Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved