Bone regeneration of porous β-tricalcium phosphate (Conduit™ TCP) and of biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic (Biosel®) in trabecular defects in sheep

被引:57
作者
Bodde, Esther W. H.
Wolke, Joop G. C.
Kowalski, Rick S. Z.
Jansen, John A.
机构
[1] Univ Nijmegen St Radboud Hosp, Med Ctr, Dept Periodontol & Biomat, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] DePuy CMW, Marton, Blackpool, England
关键词
animal model; bone remodeling; calcium phosphate(s); ceramic; degradation;
D O I
10.1002/jbm.a.30990
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 [生物医学工程];
摘要
In this study bone regeneration between porous beta-tricalchun phosphate (Conduit (TM) TCP) and biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic (Biosel (R)), with a hydroxyapatite/beta-TCP ratio of 75/25, was compared. The ceramic particles were implanted in sheep trabecular bone for 3, 12, and 26 weeks. Histomorphometrical analysis revealed that Conduit (TM) degraded significantly during time and only 36% of the material was left at 26 weeks implantation time. Biosel (R), in contrast, remained nearly intact. The degradation of Conclit (TM) was due to dissoluton as well as cell-mediated. Biosel (R) showed a high cellular intervention, although this material did not degrade. Both materials were osteoconcluctive. The amount of newly formed bone appeared greater in the Conduit (TM) group after 26 weeks (46% +/- 8% as compared to 37% 8% for Biosel (R)), but this difference was not significant. Bone distribution over the defect was homogeneous in Conduit (TM), whereas Biosel (R) showed significantly more bone in the periphery of the defect after 26 weeks in comparison to the center. In conclusion, both ceramics are biocompatible and osteoconductive. Degradation showed a difference in T amount and in cellular events, with more degraded Conduit (TM) TCP with less cellular intervention as compared to Biosel (R)). (C) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:711 / 722
页数:12
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]
Alam MI, 2001, BIOMATERIALS, V22, P1643
[2]
A comparative study of biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics for human mesenchymal stem-cell-induced bone formation [J].
Arinzeh, TL ;
Tran, T ;
Mcalary, J ;
Daculsi, G .
BIOMATERIALS, 2005, 26 (17) :3631-3638
[3]
Betz RR, 2002, ORTHOPEDICS, V25, pS561
[4]
Bohner M, 2000, Injury, V31 Suppl 4, P37
[5]
Burger E H, 1999, Adv Dent Res, V13, P93
[6]
Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites -: An experimental study in dogs [J].
Cardaropoli, G ;
Araújo, M ;
Lindhe, J .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2003, 30 (09) :809-818
[7]
Chao Edmund Y S, 2003, Eur Cell Mater, V6, P72
[8]
CHAO EY, 2003, EUR CELLS MATER, V6, P84
[9]
Cox M, 2002, BIOMED SCI INSTRUM, V38, P173
[10]
DACULSI G, 1990, BIOMATERIALS, V11, P86