4.5 Article

Biocompatibility and degradation of poly(DL-lactic-co-glycolic acid)/calcium phosphate cement composites

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 74A, Issue 4, Pages 533-544

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.30341

Keywords

biocompatibility; bone engineering; calcium phosphate; PLGA microparticles; porosity

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01-AR42639] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Injectable calcium phosphate (Ca-P) cement materials exhibit favorable osteocompatible behavior but are resorbed slowly because of a lack of a bone ingrowthenabling macroporosity. In this study, poly((DL)-lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) microparticles (average size 66 +/- 25 mu m) were incorporated into Ca-P cement to obtain a macroporous Ca-P cement scaffold after PLGA hydrolysis in vivo. Preset PLGA/Ca-P cement composite discs of various weight ratios (0/100, 15/85, 30/70, and 50/50) were implanted subcutaneously and in cranial defects in rats for 12 weeks. Histological analysis revealed that all macropores in the PLGA-containing composites (average pore size 73 +/- 27 mu m) were filled with fibrous tissue and blood vessels (subcutaneous implants) and/or bone (cranial implants). Histologically, bone formation appeared most abundant and most consistent in the 30 / 70 PLGA / Ca-P cement composites. His- tomorphometrical evaluation revealed a significant increase in defect fill in the 15/85 and 30/70 PLGA/Ca-P cement composites. Finally, subcutaneous and cranial 50/50 PLGA/ Ca-P cement composites had degraded to a large extent, without adequate replacement by bone in the cranial implants. Therefore, we conclude that PLGA/Ca-P cement composites enable tissue ingrowth and show excellent osteocompatibility in weight ratios of 15/85 and 30/70 PLGA/ Ca-P cement. In this model, 30/70 PLGA/Ca-P cement composites showed the most favorable biological response. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available