Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:47:31.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biocompatibility, Osteoconduction and Biodegradation of Porous Hydroxyapatite, Tricalcium Phosphate, Sintered Hydroxyapatite and Calcium Carbonate in Rabbit Bone Defects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Edwin C. Shors
Affiliation:
Interpore International, 18005 Skypark Circle, Irvine, CA 92714
Eugene W. White
Affiliation:
Interpore International, 18005 Skypark Circle, Irvine, CA 92714
George Kopchok
Affiliation:
Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson, Torrance, CA 90509
Get access

Abstract

The biocompatibility, osteoconduction and biodegradation characteristics of calcium phosphate ceramics is controversial. Few comparative studies have controlled for material properties as well as biological influences. In this study, we compared the in-vivo response of implants made porous (500 μm pores) using the Replamineforu™ process and composed of hydroxyapatite (HA), sintered hydroxyapatite (SHA), tricalcium phosphate (TCP) or calcium carbonate (CC). In ten rabbits, rod-shaped implants (5mm d × 10m 1) of each material were randomly press-fit into two bilateral defects of either the bicortical iliac crest or unicortical proximal tibial metaphysis. Explants were harvested at 1 to 9 months, sectioned midsagitally with half embedded in plastic for qualitative histomorphometry, and the other half decalcified and stained for histology. The acute and chronic inflammatory response was minimal for all implants. The osteoconduction properties were similar for the calcium phosphate materials, resulting in repair of the cortical defects within three months with partial bony fill of the medullary canal. CC completely degraded by three months, causing incomplete defect closure in some cases. TCP partially degraded in the medullary canal, but remained when surrounded by bone in the cortex. HA and SHA did not degrade. In summary:

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hench, L.L. and Wilson, J., Surface active biomaterials. Science 26:630 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. White, E.W., Shors, E.C. Biomaterial aspects of Interpore 200 porous hydroxyapatite. Dental Clinical of N. Amer. 30:49 (1986).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Jarcho, M. Biomaterials aspects of calcium phosphate. Dental Clinics of N. Amer. 30:25 (1986).Google Scholar
4. Holmes, R., Mooney, V., Bucholz, R., et al.: A coralline hydroxyapatite bone graft substitute, Clin. Ortho. 188:252 (1984).Google Scholar
5. Holmes, R.E., Bucholz, R.W. and Mooney, V.: Porous hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute in metaphyseal defects. J. Bone Joint Surg. 68–A:904 (1986).Google Scholar
6. Holmes, R.E. and Hagler, H.K.: Porous hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute in mandibular contour augmentation: A histometric study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 45:421 (1987).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Guillemin, G., Patat, J.L., Fournie, J., and Chetail, M., The use of coral as a bone graft substitute. J. Biomed. Mat. Res. 21:557 (1987).Google Scholar
8. Chiroff, R.T., White, E.W., Weber, J.W., and Roy, D.M., Tissue ingrowth of Replamineform implants. J. Biomed. Mat. Res. Symp. 6:29 (1975).Google Scholar
9. Shors, E.C., White, E.W. and Edwards, R.M., “A Method for Quantitative Characterization of Porous Biomaterials Using Automated Image Analysis” in Quantitative Characterization and Performance of Porous Implants for Hard Tissue Applications, ASTM STP 953, Lemons, J.E., Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1987).Google Scholar