Advertisement

Optimisation of the mechanical and handling properties of an injectable calcium phosphate cement

  • R. M. O’Hara
  • N. J. Dunne
  • J. F. Orr
  • F. J. Buchanan
  • R. K. Wilcox
  • D. C. Barton
Article

Abstract

Calcium phosphate cements have the potential to be successful in minimally invasive surgical techniques, like that of vertebroplasty, due to their ability to be injected into a specific bone cavity. These bone cements set to produce a material similar to that of the natural mineral component in bone. Due to the ceramic nature of these materials they are highly brittle and it has been found that they are difficult to inject. This study was carried out to determine the factors that have the greatest effect on the mechanical and handling properties of an apatitic calcium phosphate cement with the use of a Design of Experiments (DoE) approach. The properties of the cement were predominantly influenced by the liquid:powder ratio and weight percent of di-sodium hydrogen phosphate within the liquid phase. An optimum cement composition was hypothesised and tested. The mechanical properties of the optimised cement were within the clinical range for vertebroplasty, however, the handling properties still require improvement.

Keywords

Compressive Strength Calcium Phosphate Cement Setting Reaction Final Setting Time Handling Property 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/E022863/1).

References

  1. 1.
    Brown WE, Chow LC. A new calcium phosphate setting cement. J Dent Res. 1983;62:672.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jack V, Buchanan FJ, Dunne NJ. Particle attrition of a-tricalcium phosphate: effect on mechanical, handling, and injectability properties of calcium phosphate cements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2008;222(1):19–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohner M. Reactivity of calcium phosphate cements. J Mater Chem. 2007;17:3980–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ginebra MP. Calcium phosphate bone cements. In: Deb S, editor. Orthopaedic bone cements. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd; 2008. p. 206–230. ISBN 978-1-84569-376-3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohner M. Calcium orthophosphates in medicine: from ceramics to calcium phosphate cements Calcium. Injury 2000;31(4):S-D37–47.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friberg J, Fernández E, Sarda S, Nilsson M, Ginebra MP, Martínez S, et al. An experimental approach to the study of the rheology behaviour of synthetic bone calcium phosphate cements. Key Eng Mater. 2001;192–195:777–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ambard AJ, Mueninghoff L. Calcium phosphate cement: review of mechanical and biological properties. J Prosthodont. 2006;15(5):321–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verlann JJ, Cumhur Oner F, Dhert WJA. Anterior spinal column augmentation with injectable bone cements. Biomaterials. 2006;27(3):290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen J, Ooms E, Verdonschot N, Wolke J. Injectable calcium phosphate cement for bone repair and implant fixation. Orthop Clin N Am. 2005;36(1):89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis G. Injectable bone cements for use in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: state-of-the-art review. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2005;76B(2):456–68.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bohner M, Baroud G. Injectability of calcium phosphate pastes. Biomaterials. 2005;26(13):1553–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu HHK, Simon CG. Fast setting calcium phosphate–chitosan scaffold: mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2005;26(12):1337–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ginebra MP, Fernández E, Boltong MG, Planell JA, Bermúdez O, Driessens FCM. Compliance of a calcium phosphate cement with some short-term clinical requirements. Bioceramics. 1994;7:273–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barone CM, Jimenez DF, Boschert MT, Beckert BW. BoneSource solidification: a comparison between water and sodium phosphate as the solvent. J Craniofac Surg. 2000;11(5):495–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown WE, Chow LC. Cements research progress. Westerville: American Ceramic Society; 1986. p. 351.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lui C, Shen W. Effect of crystal seeding on the hydration of calcium phosphate cement. J Mater Sci. 1997;8(12):803–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorozhkin SV. Calcium orthophosphate cements and concretes. Materials. 2009;2(1):221–91.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ginebra MP, Driessens FCM, Planell JA. Effect of the particle size on the micro and nanostructural features of a calcium phosphate cement: a kinetic analysis. Biomaterials. 2004;25(17):3453–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khairoun I, Boltong MG, Driessens FCM, Planell JA. Some factors controlling the injectability of calcium phosphate bone cements. J Mater Sci. 1998;9(8):425–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ginebra MP, Fernández E, Boltong MG, Bermúdez O, Planell JA, Driessens FCM. Compliance of an apatitic calcium phosphate cement with the short-term clinical requirements in bone surgery, orthopaedic and dentistry. Clin Mater. 1995;17:99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sato K, Li JG, Kamiya H, Ishigaki T. Ultrasonic dispersion of TiO2 nanoparticles in aqueous suspension. J Am Ceram Soc. 2008;91(8):2481–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xiao F, Ye J, Wang Y, Rao P. Deagglomeration of HA during the precipitation synthesis. J Mater Sci. 2005;40(20):5442–93.ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. M. O’Hara
    • 1
  • N. J. Dunne
    • 1
  • J. F. Orr
    • 1
  • F. J. Buchanan
    • 1
  • R. K. Wilcox
    • 2
  • D. C. Barton
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mechanical & Aerospace EngineeringQueen’s University of BelfastBelfastNorthern Ireland, UK
  2. 2.School of Mechanical EngineeringLeeds UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations