Biocompatible Bone Fillers Pelvic Osteolysis Felicia Shay Computer

Biocompatible Bone Fillers Pelvic Osteolysis Felicia Shay Computer Integrated Surgery II

Bone Filler Ingrowth

Bibliography: Papers • S. Takaaki, M. Saito, K. Kawagoe, et al. “New hydroxyapatite composite resin as a bioactive bone cement: improvement of handling and mechanical properties. ” Bioceramics. Vol. 11 (1998): World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, 251 -254. • W. F. Mousa, M. Kobayashi, S. Shinzator, et al. “Biological and mechanical properties of commercial PMMA bone cements containing AW-GC filler” Bioceramics. Vol. 12 (1999): World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, 545 -548. • Y. Okada, K. Kawanabe, H. Fujita, et al. “Bonding behavior of bioactive bone cement in segmental replacement of rabbit tibia: comparison with PMMA bone cement. ” Bioceramics. Vol. 12 (1999): World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, 529 -533.

Bibliography: Continued • N. Asaoka, M. Misago, M. Hirano, et al. “Mechanical and chemical properties of the injectable calcium phosphate cement. ” Bioceramics. Vol. 12 (1999): World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, 525 -528. • F. C. M. Dreissens, M. G. Boltong, E. A. P. de Maeyer, et al. “Comparative Study of Some Experiemental or Commercial Calcium Phosphate Bone Cements. ” Bioceramics. Vol 11 (1998): World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, 231 -234

Test Materials/Composition • • • PMMA Composites Bioglass PMMA/ Ca/P Composites Hydroxyapatite

Background • Fundamental of: – PMMA – Ca/P – Bioglass • Uses • Ideal

Methods of Testing • • Cyclic Wear: Compression Tension: Figure 1 X-ray Diffraction: Analyze reaction Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM): Microstructure • Injectability • Setting time

Comparison of Ca/P Materials Time (I) TCP Ca. CO 3 HA HA Ca. CO 3 Bioglass 6. 5 (0. 5) 9. 5 (0. 25) 2. 75 (0. 25) 6. 25 (0. 25) Time (F) 8. 5 (0. 5) C (M Pa) 33 (5) Cement Immers Ca/P e Ca/P 1. 705 1. 672 17. 0 (1. 0) 7. 5 (0. 5) 8 (2) 1. 746 1. 616 48 (3) 1. 513 1. 481 10. 0 (0. 5) 32 (4) N/A

Compressive Strength Type of Material AP and Ca. CO 3 Compressive Strength (MPa) and Day 60 MPa (4 days) 70 MPa (7 days) 33 MPa (1 day) Hydroxyapatite 8 MPa (1 day) TCP Composite HA, DCP, Ca. Co 3 48 MPa (1 day) PMMA based 125 MPa (1 day)

Bioactive vs PMMA: after time

PMMA in Rat Tibia: 8 weeks

Weaknesses • Lack of: – In vivo testing for some experiences – Long term testing for analysis – Testing of different porousity – Uniform testing for all types of materials • Dependency upon: – Mixing – P/L ratio dependent

Strengths • • • Uniform Testing methods In vivo like environments Good comparison of materials Length of testing Different: – Composites – P/L ratios

Results/Discussion • • • Results Interpretation Inconsistencies Overlapping Resolution Additional studies