4.6 Article

Degradation and Bone-Contact Biocompatibility of Two Drillable Magnesium Phosphate Bone Cements in an In Vivo Rabbit Bone Defect Model

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16134650

关键词

magnesium phosphate cement; phytic acid; drillability; bone replacement material

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of bone-cement-enforced osteosynthesis is a growing topic in trauma surgery. This study evaluated a resorbable and drillable magnesium-phosphate-based cement paste and found that it has promising degradation behavior and biocompatibility in vivo.
The use of bone-cement-enforced osteosynthesis is a growing topic in trauma surgery. In this context, drillability is a desirable feature for cements that can improve fracture stability, which most of the available cement systems lack. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated a resorbable and drillable magnesium-phosphate (MgP)-based cement paste considering degradation behavior and biocompatibility in vivo. Two different magnesium-phosphate-based cement (MPC) pastes with different amounts of phytic acid (IP 6) as setting retarder (MPC 22.5 and MPC 25) were implanted in an orthotopic defect model of the lateral femoral condyle of New Zealand white rabbits for 6 weeks. After explantation, their resorption behavior and material characteristics were evaluated by means of X-ray diffraction (XRD), porosimetry measurement, histological staining, peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and biomechanical load-to-failure tests. Both cement pastes displayed comparable results in mechanical strength and resorption kinetics. Bone-contact biocompatibility was excellent without any signs of inflammation. Initial resorption and bone remodeling could be observed. MPC pastes with IP 6 as setting retardant have the potential to be a valuable alternative in distinct fracture patterns. Drillability, promising resorption potential and high mechanical strength confirm their suitability for use in clinical routine.

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

4.6
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