Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T09:24:01.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Osteoconduction on, and Bonding to, Calcium Phosphate Ceramic Implants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

D. M. Dziedzic ,
I. H. Savva ,
D. S. Wilkinson  and
J. E. Davies
D. M. Dziedzic
Affiliation:
Faculty of Dentistry and Centre for Biomaterials, University of Toronto, 170 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3E3, Canada.
I. H. Savva
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L7, Canada.
D. S. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L7, Canada.
J. E. Davies
Affiliation:
Faculty of Dentistry and Centre for Biomaterials, University of Toronto, 170 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3E3, Canada.
Get access

Abstract

Calcium phosphate ceramic blocks of three different densities, porous, intermediate and dense, were prepared by tape casting (total = 18), and implanted in the femora of 9 Wistar rats for 1 to 3 weeks. Following fixation, the tissue was prepared for examination by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of freeze fractured specimens, or back-scattered electron imaging (BSEI) of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) embedded, undecalcified, sections. The results demonstrated that while all ceramics were osteoconductive, the 93 % dense implants showed no evidence of bone bonding as judged by the plane at which specimens separated or cracked during preparation for microscopy. The porous ceramics, on whose surfaces both multinucleated cells and osteoid tissue were observed at all implantation times, exhibited less bone contact than the other two groups. Both SEM and BSEI showed that there was bone growth into the microporosity of both intermediate and porous ceramics, pore size range 1−2μ m, to a depth of about 6μm. The latter corresponds to the thickness of natural bone lamellae. In all implants examined, de novo bone formed on the ceramic surface by the initial production of a biological cement-line like interfacial extracellular matrix. The results clearly show that osteoconduction and bone-bonding are distinct mechanistic phenomena. While we assume the former to be a consequence of protein adsorption events culminating in anchorage of osteoblasts to the implant surface, the latter is the result of mechanical interdigitation of the extracellular matrix, produced by osteoblasts, with the microtopography of the implant surface.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 414: Symposium Z – Thin Films and Surfaces for Bioactivity and Biomedical Applications , 1995 , 147
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

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) Jarcho, M., Clin. Orth. Rel. Res. 157, 259 (1981).Google Scholar
2) Osborn, J.F. and Newesely, H., in Dental Implant Materials and Systems. Heimke G. Munchen: Hanser, 1980, p. 111–123.Google Scholar
3) Jarcho, M., Kay, J.F., Gumaer, K.I., Doremus, R.H. and Drobeck, H.P., J. Bioeng. 1, 79 (1977).Google Scholar
4) Tracy, B.M. and Doremus, R.H., J. Biomed. Mat. Res. 18, 719 (1984).Google Scholar
5) Osborn, J.F., in Biomaterials Degradation. Barbosa, M.A., 1991, p. 185–225.Google Scholar
6) Woodard, P.L., Tencer, A.F., Swenson, J. and Brown, K.L., Transactions of the Third World Biomaterials Congress, Kyoto, Japan; 1988, p 468.Google Scholar
7) Davies, J.E., Pilliar, R.M., Smith, D.C. and Chernecky, R., in Bioceramics. Volume 4. Bonfield, W., Hastings, G.W. and Tanner, K.E.. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, London, 1991, p. 199–204.Google Scholar
8) Pilliar, R.M., Davies, J.E., and Smith, D.C., MRS Bulletin, Sept. 1991, 55, (1991).Google Scholar
9) Arita, I.H., Wilkinson, D.S., Mondragón, M.A., and Castaño, V.M.. Biomaterials 16, 403 (1995).Google Scholar
10) Arita, I.H., Castaño, V.M., and Wilkinson, D.S.. J. Mat. Sci.: Materials in Medicine 6, 19 (1995).Google Scholar
11) Wakai, F., Kodama, Y., and Sakaguchi, S.. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 73, 457 (1990).Google Scholar
12) Bauer, T.W., Geesink, R.C.T., Zimmerman, R. and McMahon, J.T., J. Bone Joint Surg 73A, 1439 (1991).Google Scholar
13) Muller-Mai, C.M., Voigt, C. and Gross, U., Scanning Microscopy 4, 613 (1990).Google Scholar
14) Klawitter, J.J. and Hulbert, S.F., J. Biomed. Mat. Res. Symposium 2, 161 (1971).Google Scholar
15) Eggli, P.S., Mueller, W., and Schenk, R.K., in Biomaterials and Clinical Applications. Pizzoferrato, A., Marchetti, P.G., Ravaglioli, A. and Lee, A.J.C., Elsevier Science Publisher BV, Amsterdam, 1978, p. 53–56.Google Scholar
16) Kawaguchi, H., McKee, M.D., Okamoto, H., and Nanci, A., Cells and Materials, 3, 337, (1993).Google Scholar
17) Leeson, C.R. and Leeson, T.S., Textbook of Histology. WB Saunders Company, USA; 1981.Google Scholar
18) Gray, H., Gray's Anatomy, 36th edition. Willians, P.L. and Warwick, R.. Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone, 1980.Google Scholar
19) Osborn, J.F., in Bioceramics Oonishi, I. H., Aoki, H., and Sawai, K.. Ishiyaku Euroamerica Inc, Tokyo, 1989, p 92–95.Google Scholar
20) Geros, R.Z. Le, Orly, I., Gregorie, M. and Dalcusi, G., in The Bone Biomaterial Interface. Davies, J.E., University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1991, p 76–88.Google Scholar
21) Davies, J.E., Chernecky, R., Lowenberg, B. and Shiga, A., Cells & Materials 1, 3 (1991).Google Scholar
22) Zhou, H., Chernecky, R. and Davies, J.E., J. Bone Min. Res. 9, 367 (1994).Google Scholar
23) Shen, X., Roberts, E., Peel, S.A.F. and Davies, J.E., Cells &Materials. 3, 257 (1993).Google Scholar