4.8 Review

A review of the mechanical behavior of CaP and CaP/polymer composites for applications in bone replacement and repair

Journal

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 16-30

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.07.012

Keywords

Mechanical properties; Scaffolds; Porosity; Calcium phosphate; Composites

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Repair of load-bearing defects resulting from disease or trauma remains a critical barrier for bone tissue engineering. Calcium phosphate (Cap) scaffolds are among the most extensively studied for this application. However, CaPs are reportedly too weak for use in such defects and, therefore, have been limited to non-load-bearing applications. This paper reviews the compression, flexural and tensile properties of CaPs and CaP/polymer composites for applications in bone replacement and repair. This review reveals interesting trends that have not, to our knowledge, previously been reported. Data are classified as bulk, scaffolds, and composites, then organized in order of decreasing strength. This allows for general comparisons of magnitudes of strength both within and across classifications. Bulk and scaffold strength and porosity overlap significantly and scaffold data are comparable to bone both in strength and porosity. Further, for compression, all composite data fall below those of the bulk and most of the scaffold. Another interesting trend revealed is that strength decreases with increasing beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) content for CaP scaffolds and with increasing CaP content for CaP/polymer composites. The real limitation for CaPs appears not to be strength necessarily, but toughness and reliability, which are rarely characterized. We propose that research should focus on novel ways of toughening CaPs and discuss several potential strategies. (c) 2010 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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