In Vivo Comparative Study of Two Injectable/Moldable Calcium Phosphate Bioceramics

Thomas Miramond; E. Aguado; E. Goyenvalle; Pascal Borget; Serge Baroth; G. Daculsi

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.529-530.291

Paper Titles

Autologous Bone vs. Allograft Bone in Ridge Augmentation
p.270

A Novel Unidirectional Porous Hydroxyapatite Cylinder Implanted in the Dorsal Muscles of Dogs Promotes Fibrous Tissue Vascularization and Invasion
p.275

Comparison of Polyethylene Wear between Highly Crosslinked and Annealed UHMWPE and Conventional UHMWPE against Ceramic Heads in Total Hip Arthroplasty
p.279

Bone Grafting Putty – Animal Experiments and Clinical Applications
p.285

In Vivo Comparative Study of Two Injectable/Moldable Calcium Phosphate Bioceramics
p.291

Cortical Bone Tissue Response of Injectable Octacalcium Phosphate-Hyaluronic Acid Complexes
p.296

Bone Regenerative Properties of Injectable Calcium Phosphate/PLGA Cement in an Alveolar Bone Defect
p.300

Osteoconductivity of New Sodium Calcium Phosphate Pastes
p.304

Histological Analysis of Bone Bonding and Ingrowth into Connected Porous Hydroxyapatite Spacers in Spinal Surgery
p.309

HomeKey Engineering MaterialsKey Engineering Materials Vols. 529-530In Vivo Comparative Study of Two...

In Vivo Comparative Study of Two Injectable/Moldable Calcium Phosphate Bioceramics

Abstract:

Calcium phosphate bioceramic granules associated with hydrosoluble polymers formed putties currently more used in clinical applications as they are easy to handle (injectability, moldability). In this study, 2 kinds of materials were tested in rabbit bone defects. The first one is InOss (Biomatlante), a microporous biphasic CaP granules (BCP, HA/TCP mixture) with polysaccharidic hydrogel; and the second one is Actifuse ABX (Baxter/Apatech), pure hydroxyapatite granules containing silicate (HA-Si) with blocks copolymer hydrogel (poloxamer), . The aim of this study was to compare osteogenic properties of two kinds of CaP putties containing HA-Si versus BCP and the kinetic of resorption of their hydrogel. Data have demonstrated that both hydrogels increase the handling properties. Bone regeneration was observed in the two types of sample, however at 3 weeks, Actifuse ABX hydrogel was not totally absorbed, while InOss hydrogel was no longer observed. The second difference observed was osteoconduction. Newly formed bone over the time period studied was moreover in close contact with BCP granules than with HA-Si granules. Larger granules resorption on time was observed for BCP compared to HA-Si. Resorption of Actifuse ABX remains limited and explains the faster kinetic of absorption for InOss. This study demonstrates biocompatibility, absorbability and bone ingrowth at the expense of the two types of putty injectable/moldable bioceramic used for bone regeneration.

By email Full Text Pdf

You might also be interested in these eBooks

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 529-530)

Pages:

291-295

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.529-530.291

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

November 2012

Authors:

Thomas Miramond, E. Aguado, E. Goyenvalle, Pascal Borget, Serge Baroth, G. Daculsi

Keywords:

Bioceramic, Ha-Si, In Vivo Study, Injectable Bone Substitute, MBCP, Putty

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Permissions:

Creative Commons CC BY 4.0

References

[1] C.J. Stankewich, M.F. Swionthowski, A.F. Tencer, J. Ortho Res 4 (1996) 786-793.

Google Scholar

[2] K. Ishikawa, In Bioceramics and their clinical applications, ed Kokubo T., Woodhead publishing in materials, Boca Raton USA, 2008, pp.438-463.

Google Scholar

[3] G. Daculsi et al., Bone 25 (1999) 59-61.

Google Scholar

[4] CNRS patent, WO 95/21634 GR3034590 (T3)", 2001-01-31.

Google Scholar

[5] K. Hing et al., Biomaterials; 27 (2006) 5014-5026.

Google Scholar

[6] G. Daculsi et al.,. J Mater Sci Mater Med 21(3) (2010) 855-861.

Google Scholar

[7] S. Dorozhkin, J. Funct. Biomater. 1 (2010) 22-107.

Google Scholar

[8] S. Samizadeh et al., 9th world Biomaterials Congress, proceeding, Chengdu China, (2012).

Google Scholar

[9] M. Bohner, Biomaterials 30 (2009) 6403-6406.

Google Scholar

[10] R. Legeros et al., Bioactive Bioceramics, Orthopaedic Biology and Medicine: Musculoskeletal Regeneration, Biological materials and methods. Ed W.S. Pietrazak Humana press, Totowa NJ USA, 2009, pp.153-181.

Google Scholar

[11] G. Daculsi, R. LeGeros, Bioceramics and theirs clinical applications, T. Kokubo editor, Woodhead publishing, 2008, pp.395-424.

Google Scholar

[12] D. Le Nihouannen et al., Bone 36(6) (2005) 1086-1093.

Google Scholar

[13] O. Gauthier et al., J Mater Sci: Mat in Med 10 (1999) 199-204.

Google Scholar

[14] O. Gauthier et al., J Biomed Mater Res, 47(1) (1999) 28-35.

Google Scholar

[15] L. Le Guehennec et al., Eur Cell Mater. 13; 8 (2004) 1-11.

Google Scholar