Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

In vivo biocompatibility and mechanical study of novel bone-bioactive materials for prosthetic implantation

1999; Wiley; Volume: 46; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(199908)46

1097-4636

X. S. Zhang, Peter A. Revell, Samuel Lewin Evans, M. Tuke, P.J. Gregson,

Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Journal of Biomedical Materials ResearchVolume 46, Issue 2 p. 279-286 In vivo biocompatibility and mechanical study of novel bone-bioactive materials for prosthetic implantation X. S. Zhang, X. S. Zhang Osteoarticular Research Group, Department of Histopathology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorP. A. Revell, Corresponding Author P. A. Revell Osteoarticular Research Group, Department of Histopathology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, United KingdomOsteoarticular Research Group, Department of Histopathology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorS. L. Evans, S. L. Evans Medical Engineering Research Unit, Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff CF2 3TE, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorM. A. Tuke, M. A. Tuke Finsbury (Instruments) Ltd., Mole Business Park 3, Leatherhead KT22 0BA, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorP. J. Gregson, P. J. Gregson Department of Engineering Materials, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this author X. S. Zhang, X. S. Zhang Osteoarticular Research Group, Department of Histopathology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorP. A. Revell, Corresponding Author P. A. Revell Osteoarticular Research Group, Department of Histopathology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, United KingdomOsteoarticular Research Group, Department of Histopathology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorS. L. Evans, S. L. Evans Medical Engineering Research Unit, Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff CF2 3TE, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorM. A. Tuke, M. A. Tuke Finsbury (Instruments) Ltd., Mole Business Park 3, Leatherhead KT22 0BA, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorP. J. Gregson, P. J. Gregson Department of Engineering Materials, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 May 1999 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199908)46:2 3.0.CO;2-MCitations: 14AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Two epoxy materials with or without adhesively bonded hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings were studied for their biocompatibility and mechanical pushout strength using in vivo implantation in the rabbit lower femur for a duration of 10 days to 6 months. Both were two-part epoxies cured at room temperature for 24 h, with material 1 (Ampreg 26; SP Systems Limited, Cowes, UK) postcured at 110°C (Tg ∼ 80°C) and Material 2 (CG5052; Ciba Geigy Limited, Cambridge, UK) at 125°C (Tg ∼ 120°C). Implantation in dead rabbit bone was performed to provide mechanical baseline levels. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and conventionally HA-coated titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) were used as control materials. In the biological study, different fluorescent dyes were used to label newly formed bone. After 6 weeks of implantation, results from mechanical pushout tests showed that the interfacial shear strength (ISS) values were significantly higher than for dead bones with each of the different implants (p < .01–.001). HA-coated material 2 showed a significantly higher ISS value than the uncoated material (p < .05) after 6 weeks' implantation. However, the ISS value for the uncoated material 2 was significantly higher than for PMMA controls (p < .05). No significant differences in the ISS values were shown between HA-coated materials 1 and 2 and Ti-6Al-4V on in vivo implantation for 6 weeks. Failure points of the pushout test from the three HA-coated materials were defined by scanning electron microscopy. Specimens implanted with both HA-coated epoxies were fractured within the HA-coatings or the bone, while with HA-coated Ti-6Al-4V cracked between the coating and metal implant. The percentage of bone in contact with the implant surface was obtained by image analysis which showed that there were no significant differences between different materials after short time implantation (up to 6 week). Long-term implantation of the HA-coated material 2 showed that the percentage of bone contact had increased from 52.8 ± 1.1% (6 week) to 80.0 ± 0.3% (3 months) (p < .01) and remained at 81.0 ± 0.8% (6 months). Measurements of bone mineralization rate (BMR) showed that after 3 weeks of implantation, there were no significant differences between PMMA and uncoated materials 1 and 2. After 6 weeks, the BMRs in animals implanted with either HA-coated material 1 or 2 were significantly higher than with HA-coated Ti-6Al-4V (p < .05–.0001 in both cases), but with HA-coated material 2 was lower than with this material uncoated (p < .05–.001). No significant differences were found between the two HA-coated epoxy materials. In addition, there were always lower BMRs during the third week of implantation than other periods regardless of biomaterial implanted. The study indicated that the adhesively bonded HA-coated novel epoxy materials were superior to conventional plasma-sprayed Ti-6Al-4V implants with respect to both BMR and bone integration with the implant surfaces. Adhesively bonded HA-coated epoxy materials had similar ISS values to HA-coated Ti-6Al-4V, but the former failed within the bone and coating, while the latter showed splitting between coating and metal. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 46, 279–286, 1999. Citing Literature Volume46, Issue2August 1999Pages 279-286 RelatedInformation