4.5 Article

Effect of increased strut porosity of calcium phosphate bone graft substitute biomaterials on osteoinduction

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 100A, Issue 6, Pages 1550-1555

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34094

Keywords

bone regeneration; silicon; calcium phosphate; porosity; animal model

Funding

  1. ApaTech Ltd.
  2. John Scales Centre
  3. John Scales Centre, ApaTech Ltd

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of increasing strut porosity on the osteoinductivity of porous calcium phosphate (CaP) and silicate-substituted calcium phosphate (SiCaP) bone substitute materials was investigated in an ovine ectopic model. One to two millimeter-sized granules or block implants with strut porosities of 10, 20, or 30% were inserted into the left and right paraspinalis muscle. At 12 weeks, histological sections were prepared through the center of each implant and bone contact, bone area and implant area quantified. Backscattered scanning electron microscopy (bSEM) was used to visualize bone within small pores in the struts of the scaffolds. Increased bone formation was measured in the SiCaP with 30% strut porosity (5.482% +/- 1.546%) when compared with the nonsilicate CaP with the same morphology (1.160% +/- 0.502%, p = 0.02), indicating that silicate substitution may increase osteoinduction. Greater bone formation was seen in scaffolds with increased strut porosity. No bone growth was found in any of the SiCaP scaffold with 10% porosity. There was no significant difference between block and granule specimens. Scanning electron microscopy and EDX in combination with histology demonstrated bone formation within pores <5 mu m in size. The use of silicate-substituted CaP material with increased strut porosity may further augment repair and regeneration in bony sites. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A, 2012.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available