In vivo behaviour of low-temperature calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite: comparison with deproteinised bovine bone

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate in detail the biological osteoconductive properties of the low-temperature synthetic porous calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite and to compare it with the biological apatite. Bone reactions to granules of similar sizes of the low-temperature hydroxyapatite and commercially available non-sintered deproteinized bovine bone were compared. Two different temperatures were used to fabricate two batches of newly developed porous hydroxyapatite with different carbonate groups content and specific surface area. The histological analysis of specimens with histomorphometry was performed at different time after in vivo implantation. Based on histological analysis, the level of bone formation in the spaces between the implanted granules and through the interconnected pores of all implanted materials within a cortical region (bone area ingrowth 72-85 %) was several-fold higher than within a cancellous bone site (bone area ingrowth 16-28 %) at three and six months after implantation. Within the cancellous bone site, bone coverage of the implanted material at six months was significantly higher in hydroxyapatite material fabricated using low-temperature synthesis and subsequent processing at 150°C than in hydroxyapatite scaffold developed using low-temperature synthesis with subsequent processing at 700°C or deproteinized bovine bone. According to our study, the bioactive properties of the low-temperature calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite are comparable with the biological apatite. The favourable influence of a high specific surface area of a low-temperature calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite on in vivo bone formation was emphasized.

Kliniczna i radiologiczna ocena zastosowania materiału Bio-Gen Mix w ubytkach kości szczęk

“…Kozakiewicz et al [17], Ray et al [18], Merkx et al [19,20], Traini et al [21], Bashara et al [22], Jensen et al [23], Šponer et al [24], Cestari et al [25], report the possibility of using bone replacement materials of various types in diverse clinical settings.…”

Development and characterization of an injectable cement of nano calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite/multi(amino acid) copolymer/calcium sulfate hemihydrate for bone repair

“…22 Recent studies have shown that n-CDHA at a lower Ca/P ratio (1.5-1.67) is more biologically active than the nano hydroxyapatite because the former has similar compositions and crystal structures to the mineral of nature bone. 23,24 The addition of MAC to n-CDHA results in an improvement in the mechanical strength and ductility. However, the granular form of n-CDHA-MAC renders it difficult to be applied in irregular, complex bone injuries.…”

“…13,29 Therefore, the incorporation of n-CDHA into the MAC matrix may improve the biological properties of the composite material and has positive effects on cell proliferation and viability. 24 ALP is an early marker for osteoblast differentiation and participates in the process of mineralization. 30 Our data showed that the ALP activity in MC3T3-E1 cells cultured on the n-CDHA/ MAC/CSH composite is significantly higher than in the cells cultured on pure CSH or control plates at 4 and 7 days of culture, indicating a promotion of osteogenesis by the n-CDHA/MAC/CSH composite.…”

Neocellularization and neovascularization of nanosized bioactive glass‐coated decellularized trabecular bone scaffolds

“…Bone tissue engineering (TE) aims to regenerate and restore damaged or diseased bone by inducing the human body to heal itself using its intrinsic regenerative potential 1. Besides polymers or ceramic‐based biocompatible materials, either as single phases or composites,2–9 bone autografts, allografts, or xenografts have also been suggested as structural support (scaffolds) to repair or regenerate diseased bone 10–21. Advantages and disadvantages of decellularized bone for its use as TE scaffold have been discussed in the literature 11, 16–19…”

“…1 Besides polymers or ceramic-based biocompatible materials, either as single phases or composites, [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] bone autografts, allografts, or xenografts have also been suggested as structural support (scaffolds) to repair or regenerate diseased bone. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Advantages and disadvantages of decellularized bone for its use as TE scaffold have been discussed in the literature. 11,[16][17][18][19] Because of its three-dimensional (3D) microstructure and morphology (i.e., highly interconnected and permeable structure with high porosity), its natural nanoscale topography and hierarchical structure, biochemical composition, and suitable mechanical properties and structural environment, decellularized trabecular bone provides an adequate ''biomimetic'' scaffold/matrix that should enable cells to attach, proliferate, differentiate, and organize into healthy bone.…”