Effects of particle size and porosity on in vivo remodeling of settable allograft bone/polymer composites
Edna M. Prieto
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Search for more papers by this authorAnne D. Talley
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Search for more papers by this authorNicholas R. Gould
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Search for more papers by this authorKatarzyna J. Zienkiewicz
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Search for more papers by this authorSusan J. Drapeau
Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, Memphis, Tennessee
Search for more papers by this authorKerem N. Kalpakci
Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, Memphis, Tennessee
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Scott A. Guelcher
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Correspondence to: S. A. Guelcher; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorEdna M. Prieto
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Search for more papers by this authorAnne D. Talley
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Search for more papers by this authorNicholas R. Gould
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Search for more papers by this authorKatarzyna J. Zienkiewicz
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Search for more papers by this authorSusan J. Drapeau
Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, Memphis, Tennessee
Search for more papers by this authorKerem N. Kalpakci
Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, Memphis, Tennessee
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Scott A. Guelcher
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Correspondence to: S. A. Guelcher; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorConflict of Interest: S.A.G. is a consultant for Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, and the preclinical rabbit study was funded by Medtronic.
Abstract
Established clinical approaches to treat bone voids include the implantation of autograft or allograft bone, ceramics, and other bone void fillers (BVFs). Composites prepared from lysine-derived polyurethanes and allograft bone can be injected as a reactive liquid and set to yield BVFs with mechanical strength comparable to trabecular bone. In this study, we investigated the effects of porosity, allograft particle size, and matrix mineralization on remodeling of injectable and settable allograft/polymer composites in a rabbit femoral condyle plug defect model. Both low viscosity and high viscosity grafts incorporating small (<105 μm) particles only partially healed at 12 weeks, and the addition of 10% demineralized bone matrix did not enhance healing. In contrast, composite grafts with large (105–500 μm) allograft particles healed at 12 weeks postimplantation, as evidenced by radial μCT and histomorphometric analysis. This study highlights particle size and surface connectivity as influential parameters regulating the remodeling of composite bone scaffolds. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 103B: 1641–1651, 2015.
REFERENCES
- 1 Woodruff MA, et al. Bone tissue engineering: From bench to bedside. Mater Today 2012; 15: 430–435.
- 2 Rezwan K, et al. Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2006; 27: 3413–3431.
- 3 Scaglione S, et al. A composite material model for improved bone formation. J Tissue Eng Regenerative Med 2010; 4: 505–513.
- 4 Bose S, Roy M, Bandyopadhyay A. Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol 2012; 30: 546–554.
- 5 Hak DJ. The use of osteoconductive bone graft substitutes in orthopaedic trauma. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15: 525–536.
- 6 Russell TA, Leighton RK. Comparison of autogenous bone graft and endothermic calcium phosphate cement for defect augmentation in tibial plateau fractures. A multicenter, prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 2057–2061.
- 7 Wagoner Johnson AJ, Herschler BA. A review of the mechanical behavior of CaP and CaP/polymer composites for applications in bone replacement and repair. Acta Biomater 2011; 7: 16–30.
- 8 Bohner ML, Galea, Doebelin N. Calcium phosphate bone graft substitutes: Failures and hopes. J Eur Ceramic Soc 2012; 32: 2663–2671.
- 9 Jones JR. Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater 2013; 9: 4457–4486.
- 10 Page JM, et al. Biocompatibility and chemical reaction kinetics of injectable, settable polyurethane/allograft bone biocomposites. Acta Biomater 2012; 8: 4405–4416.
- 11 Adhikari R, et al. Biodegradable injectable polyurethanes: Synthesis and evaluation for orthopaedic applications. Biomaterials 2008; 29: 3762–3770.
- 12 Dumas JE, et al. Balancing the rates of new bone formation and polymer degradation enhances healing of weight-bearing allograft/polyurethane composites in rabbit femoral defects. Tissue Eng Part A 2014;20:115–129.
- 13 Kruger R, Groll J. Fiber reinforced calcium phosphate cements—On the way to degradable load bearing bone substitutes? Biomaterials 2012; 33: 5887–5900.
- 14 Dumas JE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of an injectable allograft bone/polymer composite bone void filler with tunable mechanical properties. Tissue Eng A 2010; 16: 2505–2518.
- 15 Dumas JE, et al. Injectable reactive biocomposites for bone healing in critical-size rabbit calvarial defects. Biomed Mater 2012; 7: 024112.
- 16 Yoshii T, et al. Synthesis, characterization of calcium phosphates/polyurethane composites for weight-bearing implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2012; 100B: 32–40.
- 17 Dumas JE, et al. Synthesis, characterization, and remodeling of weight-bearing allograft bone/polyurethane composites in the rabbit. Acta Biomater 2010; 6: 2394–2406.
- 18 Klüppel LE, et al. Bone repair is influenced by different particle sizes of anorganic bovine bone matrix: A histologic and radiographic study in vivo. J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24: 1074–1077.
- 19 Guelcher, S., et al., Synthesis, in vitro degradation, and mechanical properties of two-component poly (ester urethane) urea scaffolds: Effects of water and polyol composition. Tissue engineering, 2007. 13(9): 2321–2333.
- 20 Guelcher SA, et al. Synthesis and in vitro biocompatibility of injectable polyurethane foam scaffolds. Tissue Eng 2006; 12(5): 1247–1259.
- 21 Eagan MJ. McAllister DR. Biology of allograft incorporation. Clin Sports Med 2009; 28: 203–214.
- 22 Poslinski AJ, et al. Rheological behavior of filled polymeric systems I. Yield stress and shear-thinning effects. J Rheol 1988; 32: 703–735.
- 23 Portero-Muzy NR, et al. Euler strut. cavity, a new histomorphometric parameter of connectivity reflects bone strength and speed of sound in trabecular bone from human os calcis. Calcif Tissue Int 2007; 81: 92–98.
- 24
Pratt W. Digital Imaging Processing. 2001, Canada: Wiley; 2001.
10.1002/0471221325 Google Scholar
- 25 Baroud GE, Cayer, Bohner M. Rheological characterization of concentrated aqueous beta-tricalcium phosphate suspensions: The effect of liquid-to-powder ratio, milling time, and additives. Acta Biomater 2005; 1: 357–363.
- 26 Bouxsein ML, et al. Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro–computed tomography. J Bone Mineral Res 2010; 25: 1468–1486.
- 27 Ferreira CEA, et al. A clinical study of 406 sinus augmentations with 100% anorganic bovine bone. J Periodontol 2009; 80: 1920–1927.
- 28 Pieri F, et al. Alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh and a combination of autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone: A 2-year prospective study. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 2093–2103.
- 29 Li JQ, Salovey R. Model filled polymers: The effect of particle size on the rheology of filled poly(methyl methacrylate) composites. Polym Eng Sci 2004; 44: 452–462.
- 30 Tiedeman J, et al. Treatment of nonunion by percutaneous injection of bone marrow and demineralized bone matrix. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; 268: 294-302.
- 31 Frenkel S, et al. Demineralized bone matrix. Enhancement of spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18: 1634–1639.
- 32 Damien C, et al. Effect of demineralized bone matrix on bone growth within a porous HA material: A histologic and histometric study. J Biomater Appl 1995; 9: 275–288.
- 33 Simion M, et al. Qualitative and quantitative comparative study on different filling materials used in bone tissue regeneration: A controlled clinical study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994; 14: 198-215.
- 34 Shapoff CA, et al. The effect of particle size on the osteogenic activity of composite grafts of allogeneic freeze-dried bone and autogenous marrow. J Periodontol 1980; 51: 625–630.
- 35 Coathup MJ, et al. The effect of particle size on the osteointegration of injectable silicate-substituted calcium phosphate bone substitute materials. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 2013; 101B: 902–910.
- 36 Oest ME, et al. Quantitative assessment of scaffold and growth factor-mediated repair of critically sized bone defects. J Orthop Res 2007; 25: 941–950.
