Bone regeneration with glass ceramic implants and calcium phosphate cements in a rabbit cranial defect model

  • Gerlind Schneider
  • Karin Blechschmidt
  • Dirk Linde
  • Peter Litschko
  • Thomas Körbs
  • Eggert Beleites
Article

Abstract

Hydroxyapatite cement (BoneSource®) and brushite calcium phosphate cement (chronOS™ Inject) were tested for fixation of glass ceramic implants (Bioverit®) in experimentally created cranial defects in 24 adult New Zealand White rabbits. Aim of the in vivo study was to assess and compare the biocompatibility and osseointegration of the implanted materials. Macroscopic and histological evaluations were performed 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. All implanted materials were well tolerated by the surrounding tissue. Both bone cements exhibited osteoconductive properties. Differences could be detected regarding to the rates of cement resorption and new bone formation. The brushite cement was resorbed faster than the hydroxyapatite cement. The chronOS™ Inject samples exhibited a higher rate of connective tissue formation and an insufficient osseointegration. BoneSource® was replaced by bone with minimal invasion of connective tissue. New bone formation occurred faster compared to the chronOS™ Inject group. Bioverit® implants fixed with BoneSource® were successfully osseointegrated.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Mathys Medical Ltd. and Stryker Leibinger for providing the bone cements used in this study and Mathys Medical Ltd. for partial financial support of the animal experiments. We are grateful to Dr. H. Schubert and Mrs. P. Dobermann (Institute for Animal Experiments of the School of Medicine, Friedrich Schiller University Jena) for performing the anaesthesia of the rabbits and their perioperative care. This study was founded by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology.

References

  1. 1.
    Beleites E, Neupert G, Augsten G, Vogel W, Schubert H. Scanning electron microscopy study of cell growth on mechanically produced biovitroceramic and carbon glass in vitro and in vivo. Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg). 1985;64:217–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneider G. Zur Osteoinduktion und Korrosion bei Implantation der Glaskeramik Bioverit - eine tierexperimentelle Studie. [Thesis ]. Jena: Friedrich Schiller University; 1998Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beleites E, Rechenbach G. Implantologie in der Kopf-Hals-Chirurgie - gegenwärtiger Stand. In: Ganz H, Schätzle W, editors. HNO Praxis Heute. 12: Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1992. p. 170–199.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beleites E, Schneider G, Fried W, Schumann D, Linß W. 3-D-Artificial implants for bone defects of the skull. Dtsch Ärztebl. 2001;98:244–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siebert H, Schleier P, Beinemann J, et al. Evaluation of individual ceramic implants made of Bioverit with CAD/CAM technology to reconstruct multidimensional craniofacial defects of the human skull. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2006;10:185–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klein M, Glatzer C. Individual CAD/CAM fabricated glass-bioceramic implants in reconstructive surgery of the bony orbital floor. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:565–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costantino PD, Friedman CD, Jones K, Chow LC, Sisson GA. Experimental hydroxyapatite cement cranioplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;90:174–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burstein FD, Williams JK, Hudgins R, et al. Hydroxyapatite cement in craniofacial reconstruction: experience in 150 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:484–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman CD, Costantino PD, Takagi S, Chow LC. BoneSource hydroxyapatite cement: a novel biomaterial for craniofacial skeletal tissue engineering and reconstruction. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43:428–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman CD. Future directions in biomaterial implants and tissue engineering. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001;3:136–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollier LH, Stal S. The use of hydroxyapatite cements in craniofacial surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 2004;31:423–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verheggen R, Merten HA. Correction of skull defects using hydroxyapatite cement (HAC)—evidence derived from animal experiments and clinical experience. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2001;143:919–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Verret DJ, Ducic Y, Oxford L, Smith J. Hydroxyapatite cement in craniofacial reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;133:897–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Apelt D, Theiss F, El-Warrak AO, et al. In vivo behavior of three different injectable hydraulic calcium phosphate cements. Biomaterials. 2004;25:1439–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu JX, About I, Stephan G, et al. Histological and biomechanical studies of two bone colonizable cements in rabbits. Bone. 1999;25:41S–5S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oberle A, Theiss F, Bohner M, et al. Investigation about the clinical use of brushite- and hydroxylapatite-cement in sheep. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde. 2005;147:482–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ohura K, Bohner M, Hardouin P, et al. Resorption of, and bone formation from, new beta-tricalcium phosphate-monocalcium phosphate cements: an in vivo study. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996;30:193–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuemmerle JM, Oberle A, Oechslin C, et al. Assessment of the suitability of a new brushite calcium phosphate cement for cranioplasty - an experimental study in sheep. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2005;33:37–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donath K, Breuner G. A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissues. The Säge-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique. J Oral Pathol. 1982;11:318–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Munting E, Mirtchi AA, Lemaitre J. Bone repair of defects filled with phosphocalcic hydraulic cement: an in vivo study. J Mater Sci. 1993;4:337–44.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Indovina A Jr, Block MS. Comparison of 3 bone substitutes in canine extraction sites. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60:53–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gosain AK, Riordan PA, Song L, et al. A 1-year study of hydroxyapatite-derived biomaterials in an adult sheep model: III. Comparison with autogenous bone graft for facial augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1044–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friedman CD, Costantino PD, Jones K, et al. Hydroxyapatite cement. II. Obliteration and reconstruction of the cat frontal sinus. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;117:385–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rupprecht S, Merten HA, Kessler P, Wiltfang J. Hydroxyapatite cement (BoneSource) for repair of critical sized calvarian defects—an experimental study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003;31:149–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Theiss F, Apelt D, Brand B, et al. Biocompatibility and resorption of a brushite calcium phosphate cement. Biomaterials. 2005;26:4383–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerlind Schneider
    • 1
  • Karin Blechschmidt
    • 1
  • Dirk Linde
    • 1
  • Peter Litschko
    • 2
  • Thomas Körbs
    • 2
  • Eggert Beleites
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of MedicineFriedrich Schiller UniversityJenaGermany
  2. 2.3di GmbHJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations