4.3 Article

Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: Calcium phosphate cement with different ratios of platelet-rich plasma as identifiers

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.04.042

关键词

Calcium phosphate bone cement; Growth factors; Apatite; Platelet-rich plasma; Autograft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to evaluate further the performance of a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) additive incorporated with calcium phosphate bone cement (CPC) in vitro to prove its efficiency as bone graft substitutes and its compatibility to be incorporated into the CPC with other techniques in clinical restoration in vivo. The growth factor release ability and the osteogenic evaluation of PRP, CPC, and PRP/CPC testing groups with 5, 10, and 15 wt.% PRP were compared in vitro. Four groups were measured using non-decalcified staining methods in vivo, which include the testing group of 10 wt.% PRP/CPC selected from the evaluation in vitro, by using both the autograft with rabbit trabecular and CPC-only as comparison groups and the group without grafting material as the control sample. The results obtained through specimen immersion show that growth factor release and alkaline phosphatase activities after osteoprogenitor cell culture had a significantly better effect on 10 and 15 wt.% PRP/CPC than on the other groups in vitro. Analysis results suggest that PRP was still retained in the CPC matrix even after 32 days of immersion. The results in vivo show that the histology of the autograft bone and the control group without grafting material exhibited fibrous connective and adipose tissues, which obviously filled the created cavity even at nine weeks after the operation. Osteoregeneration was more successful in the PRP-additive group, which accumulated bone remodeling than in the other groups. In conclusion, CPC could be a potential carrier with adequate PRP additives that bear a therapeutic potential for enhanced bone tissue regeneration. (c) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据