4.8 Article

Bone ingrowth in macroporous Bonelike (R) for orthopaedic applications

Journal

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 370-377

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.06.009

Keywords

Bonelike (R); porous materials; bone graft; orthopaedic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to evaluate the biological behaviour of porous scaffold structures of Bonelike(R) which is suitable for either direct clinical use or tissue engineering applications. Porous cylindrical specimens 8 x 10 mm were implanted in the lateral aspect of the tibia of 13 patients (mean age 54 years), during osteotomy surgery for the treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. Implanted cylinders were retrieved at the same time as the removal of the blade plates at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Scanning electron microscopy and histological evaluations were performed to observe the biological responses of human bone tissue to porous Bonelike(R). The penetration depth was determined for all implantation periods, and after 6 months it was already possible to see new bone in the centre of the implanted cylinders, which gives 100% of penetration depth for all implantations periods except for 3 months when bone could only be seen in the peripherical region. Regarding the percentage of the area covered by new bone calculated from two-dimensional histological sections, values of 53 +/- 15, 76 +/- 12 and 88 +/- 9% were achieved for 6, 9 and 12 months, respectively. Due to its structural features porous Bonelikee permitted effective vascularization and bone ingrowth, and therefore was fully osteointegrated as shown in the histological surveys. A slow biomaterial degradation with implantation time is envisaged since the material has displayed surface degradation. Bonelike(R) scaffolds show potential for complete ingrowth of osseous tissue and restoration of vascularization throughout the defected site. (C) 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Acta Materialia Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available