Investigations with bioactivated polymethylmethacrylates

We developed a bioactive bone cement (BABC) that consists of apatite and wollastonite containing glass ceramic (AW-GC) powder and bisphenol-A-glycidyl dimethacrylate (Bis-GMA) based resin. In the present study, the effectiveness of the BABC for repair of segmental bone defects under load-bearing conditions was examined using a rabbit tibia model. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement was used as a control. A 15-mm length of bone was resected from the middle of the shaft of the tibia, and the tibia was fixed by two Kirschner wires. The defects were replaced by cement. Each cement was used in 12 rabbits; six rabbits were sacrificed at 12 and 25 weeks after surgery, and the tibia containing the bone cement was excised and tension tested. At both the intervals studied, the failure loads of the BABC were significantly higher than those of the PMMA cement. The BABC was in direct contact with bone, whereas soft tissue was observed between the cement and bone in all PMMA cement specimens. Results indicated that the BABC was useful as a bone substitute under load-bearing conditions.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repair of segmental bone defects using bioactive bone cement: Comparison with PMMA bone cement

Okada

Kawanabe

Fujita

et al. 1999

“…The second type is a cement made by mixing a bioactive filler, such as HA powder, with resin. [19][20][21][22][23] In 1993 Kawanabe et al 5 described a bioactive bone cement that consisted of CaO−SiO 2 −P 2 O 5 −CaF 2 glass powder and Bis-GMA based resin. Tamura et al [6][7][8] described bioactive bone cements that consisted of MgO−CaO−SiO 2 −P 2 O 5 −CaF 2 glass or AW-GC powder and Bis-GMA based resin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transmission electron microscopic study of interface between bioactive bone cement and bone: Comparison of apatite and wollastonite containing glass-ceramic filler with hydroxyapatite and ?-tricalcium phosphate fillers

Okada

Kobayashi

Fujita

et al. 1999

We developed a bioactive bone cement that consists of apatite and wollastonite containing glass-ceramic (AW-GC) powder and bisphenol-a-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) based resin. In this study, we made three types of cement (designated AWC, HAC, and TCPC) consisting of either AW-GC, hydroxyapatite (HA), or beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) powder as the inorganic filler and Bis-GMA based resin as the organic matrix. These cements were implanted into rat tibiae and cured in situ. Specimens were prepared 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks after the operation and observed using transmission electron microscopy. Each of the bone cements was in direct contact with the bone. In AWC-implanted tibiae, the uncured surface layer of Bis-GMA based resin was completely filled with newly formed bone-like tissue 2 weeks after implantation. The AW-GC particles were surrounded by bone and were in contact with bone through an apatite layer. No intervening soft tissue was seen. In HAC-implanted tibiae, it took 4 weeks for the uncured layer to completely fill with newly formed bonelike tissue. The HA particles were also in contact with bone through an apatite layer. In TCPC-implanted tibiae, it took 8 weeks for the uncured layer to fill with newly formed bone-like tissue. The new bone that formed on the TCPC was not as dense as that on the AWC or HAC, and an intervening apatite layer was not evident. Results indicated that AWC had higher bioactivity than either HAC or TCPC.

“…To improve the mechanical properties of PMMA bone cement, bioactive glass-ceramic particles have been added. 10 However, the mechanical properties of these composites have been shown to be inferior to the mechanical properties of PMMA bone cement, resulting in failure. Taken together, these problems warrant the development of a new bioactive bone cement (BABC) that has better mechanical and biochemical properties than those of PMMA bone cement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of bioactive bone cement in canine total hip arthroplasty

Fujita¹,

Ido²,

Matsuda³

et al. 2000

Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) were performed in beagle dogs using a bioactive bone cement (BABC) consisting of a silane-treated apatite- and wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic (AW glass-ceramic) powder and a silica glass powder as the filling particles and a bisphenol-A-glycidyl dimethacrylate-based resin (Bis-GMA-based resin) as the organic matrix. The outcomes were compared with the results of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement. The mechanical properties of the BABC were stronger than those of PMMA bone cement. The bonding strength of the BABC to bone in the dogs' femora increased with time and reached 3.7 MPa at 24 months after implantation whereas that of PMMA bone cement was 2.0 MPa (p < 0.05). Histological examination showed direct bonding between the BABC and the femoral bone for up to 24 months after implantation. However, with PMMA bone cement an intervening soft-tissue layer consistently was observed at the bone-cement interface. Direct bonding at the interface between the BABC and the bone through a calcium phosphorous layer 30 microm-thick was revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Femoral bone resorption was observed at 24 months after implantation in the BABC group, but it was not observed in the PMMA bone cement group. Direct bonding between BABC and the bone may have accelerated femoral bone resorption. Cement fractures of the BABC were observed on the acetabular side 24 months after implantation. Weak bonding between the BABC and an acetabular component made of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), relatively high elastic characteristics of BABC, and weakness of the calcium phosphorous layer formed on the surface of this cement seemed to lead to failure at 24 months on the acetabular side.