Bioactive polymethyl methacrylate-based bone cement: comparison of glass beads, apatite- and wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic, and hydroxyapatite fillers on mechanical and biological properties.
A new bioactive bone cement (designated GBC) consisting of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as an organic matrix and bioactive glass beads as an inorganic filler has been developed. The bioactive beads, consisting of MgO-CaO-SiO(2)-P(2)O(5)-CaF(2) glass, have been newly designed, and a novel PMMA powder was selected. The purpose of the present study was to compare this new bone cement GBC's mechanical properties in vitro and its osteoconductivity in vivo with cements consisting of the same matrix as GBC and either apatite- and wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic (AW-GC) powder (designated AWC) or sintered hydroxyapatite (HA) powder (HAC). Each filler added to the cements amounted to 70 wt %. The bending strength of GBC was significantly higher than that of AWC and HAC (p < 0.0001). Cements were packed into intramedullar canals of rat tibiae in order to evaluate osteoconductivity as determined by an affinity index. Rats were sacrificed at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after operation. An affinity index, which equaled the length of bone in direct contact with the cement expressed as a percentage of the total length of the cement surface, was calculated for each cement. At each time interval studied, GBC showed a significantly higher affinity index than AWC or HAC up to 8 weeks after implantation (p < 0.03). The value for GBC increased significantly with time up to 8 weeks (p < 0.006). The handling property of GBC was comparable with that of PMMA bone cement. Our study revealed that the higher osteoconductivity of GBC was due to the higher bioactivity of the bioactive glass beads at the cement surface and the lower solubility of the new PMMA powder to MMA monomer. In addition, it was found that the smaller spherical shape and glassy phase of the glass beads gave GBC strong enough mechanical properties to be useful under weight-bearing conditions. GBC shows promise as an alternative with improved properties to the conventionally used PMMA bone cement.
Shinzato
S
S
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kawahara-cho 54, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan. shinzato@mbox.kyoto-inet.or.jp
Kobayashi
M
M
Mousa
W F
WF
Kamimura
M
M
Neo
M
M
Kitamura
Y
Y
Kokubo
T
T
Nakamura
T
T
D000818:Animals; D001031:Apatites / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000494:pharmacology; D001843:Bone Cements / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000494:pharmacology; D018786:Bone Substitutes; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000494:pharmacology; D017886:Durapatite / Q000494:pharmacology; D004548:Elasticity; D005898:Glass; D008297:Male; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D010012:Osteogenesis / Q000187:drug effects; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000494:pharmacology; D051381:Rats; D017208:Rats, Wistar; D012824:Silicic Acid / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000494:pharmacology; D013718:Tensile Strength; D013978:Tibial Fractures / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery
D001031:Apatites; D001843:Bone Cements; D018786:Bone Substitutes; C077777:apatite-wollastonite-containing glass ceramic; D012824:Silicic Acid; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate; D017886:Durapatite