Bioactive bone cement: Comparison of apatite and wollastonite containing glass-ceramic, hydroxyapatite, and ?-tricalcium phosphate fillers on bone-bonding strength

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
A study was conducted to compare the bone-bonding strengths of three types of bioactive bone cement, consisting of either apatite- and wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic (AW-GC) powder, hydroxyapatite (HA) powder, or β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) powder as an inorganic filler and bisphenol-a-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) based resin as an organic matrix. Seventy percent (w/w) filler was added to the cement. Rectangular plates (10 × 15 × 2 mm) of each cement were made and abraded with #2000 alumina powder. After soaking in simulated body fluid for 2 days, the AW cement (AWC) and HA cement (HAC) formed bonelike apatite over their entire surfaces, but the TCP cement (TCPC) did not. Plates of each type of cement were implanted into the tibial metaphyses of male Japanese white rabbits, and the failure loads were measured by a detaching test at 10 and 25 weeks after implantation. The failure loads of AWC, HAC, and TCPC were 3.95, 2.04, and 2.03 kgf at 10 weeks and 4.36, 3.45, and 3.10 kgf at 25 weeks, respectively. The failure loads of the AWC were significantly higher than those of the HAC and TCPC at 10 and 25 weeks. Histological examination by contact microradiogram and Giemsa surface staining of the bone–cement interface revealed that all the bioactive bone cements were in direct contact with bone. However, scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis showed that only AWC had contacted to the bone via a Ca-P rich layer formed at the interface between the AW-GC powder and the bone, which might explain its high bone-bonding strength. Neither the HAC nor the TCPC contacted the bone through such a layer between each powder and the bone, although the HAC and TCPC directly contacted with bone. Our results indicate that all three types of abraded and prefabricated cement have bonding strength to bone, but AWC has superior bone-bonding strength compared to HAC and TCPC. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 42, 223–237, 1998.