4.8 Article

Mechanical evaluation of implanted calcium phosphate cement incorporated with PLGA microparticles

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 27, 期 28, 页码 4941-4947

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.05.022

关键词

injectable CaP/PLGA cement; mechanical properties; bone ingrowth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the mechanical properties of an implanted calcium phosphate (CaP) cement incorporated with 20 wt% Poly (DL-lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) microparticles were investigated in a rat cranial defect. After 2, 4 and 8 weeks of implantation, implants were evaluated mechanically (push-out test) and morphologically (Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and histology). The results of the push-out test showed that after 2 weeks the shear strength of the implants was 0.44 +/- 0.44 MPa (average +/- sd), which increased to 1.34 +/- 1.05 MPa at 4 weeks and finally resulted in 2.60 +/- 2.78 MPa at 8 weeks. SEM examination showed a fracture plane at the bone-cement interface at 2 weeks, while the 4- and 8-week specimens created a fracture plane into the CaP/PLGA composites, indicating an increased strength of the bone-cement interface. Histological evaluation revealed that the two weeks implantation period resulted in minimal bone ingrowth, while at 4 weeks of implantation the peripheral PLGA microparticles were degraded and replaced by deposition of newly formed bone. Finally, after 8 weeks of implantation the degradation of the PLGA microparticles was almost completed, which was observed by the bone ingrowth throughout the CaP/PLGA composites. On basis of our results, we conclude that the shear strength of the bone-cement interface increased over time due to bone ingrowth into the CaP/PLGA composites. Although the bone-cement contact could be optimized with an injectable CaP cement to enhance bone ingrowth, still the mechanical properties of the composites after 8 weeks of implantation are insufficient for load-bearing purposes. (c) 2006 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