4.8 Article

Development of a bovine collagen-apatitic calcium phosphate cement for potential fracture treatment through vertebroplasty

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 4043-4052

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.07.003

关键词

Calcium phosphate cement; Collagen fibres; Reinforcement; Vertebroplasty; Injectability

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E022863/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/E022332/1, EP/E022863/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E022863/1, EP/E022332/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to examine the potential of incorporating bovine fibres as a means of reinforcing a typically brittle apatite calcium phosphate cement for vertebroplasty. Type I collagen derived from bovine Achilles tendon was ground cryogenically to produce an average fibre length of 0.96 +/- 0.55 mm and manually mixed into the powder phase of an apatite-based cement at 1,3 or 5 wt.%. Fibre addition of up to 5 wt.% had a significant effect (P <= 0.001) on the fracture toughness, which was increased by 172%. Adding <= 1 wt.% bovine collagen fibres did not compromise the compressive properties significantly, however, a decrease of 39-53% was demonstrated at >= 3 wt.% fibre loading. Adding bovine collagen to the calcium phosphate cement reduced the initial and final setting times to satisfy the clinical requirements stated for vertebroplasty. The cement viscosity increased in a linear manner (R-2 = 0.975) with increased loading of collagen fibres, such that the injectability was found to be reduced by 83% at 5 wt.% collagen loading. This study suggests for the first time the potential application of a collagen-reinforced calcium phosphate cement as a viable option in the treatment of vertebral fractures, however, issues surrounding efficacious cement delivery need to be addressed. (C) 2012 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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