In vivo performance of bilayer hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration in the rabbit radius

  • Teja Guda
  • John A. Walker
  • Beth E. Pollot
  • Mark R. Appleford
  • Sunho Oh
  • Joo L. Ong
  • Joseph C. Wenke
Article

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the in vivo biomechanical performance of bone defects implanted with novel bilayer hydroxyapatite (HAp) scaffolds that mimic the cortical and cancellous organization of bone. The scaffolds maintained architectural continuity in a rabbit radius segmental defect model and were compared to an untreated defect group (negative control) and autologous bone grafts (positive control). Micro-CT evaluations indicated total bone and scaffold volume in the experimental group was significantly greater than the defect group but lesser than the autologous bone graft treatment. The flexural toughness of the scaffold and the autograft groups was significantly greater than the flexural toughness of the defect group. Interestingly, the absolute density of the bone mineral as well as calcium to phosphorus (Ca/P) ratio in that mineral for the scaffold and autograft contralateral bones was significantly higher than those for the defect contralaterals suggesting that the scaffolds contributed to calcium homeostasis. It was concluded from this study that new bone regenerated in the bilayer HAp scaffolds was comparable to the empty defects and while the HAp scaffolds provided significant increase in modulus when compared to empty defect and their flexural toughness was comparable to autografts after 8 weeks of implantation.

References

  1. 1.
    Greenwald AS, Boden SD, Goldberg VM, Khan Y, Laurencin CT, Rosier RN. Bone-graft substitutes: facts, fictions, and applications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:98–103.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: an update. Injury. 2005;36:S20–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glancy GL, Brugioni DJ, Eilert RE, Chang FM. Autograft versus allograft for benign lesions in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;262:28–33.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laurie SW, Kaban LB, Mulliken JB, Murray JE. Donor-site morbidity after harvesting rib and iliac bone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73(6):933–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guda T, Appleford M, Oh S, Ong JL. A cellular perspective to bioceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: the state of the art. Curr Top Med Chem. 2008;8(4):290–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oh S, Oh N, Appleford M, Ong JL. Bioceramics for tissue engineering applications—a review. Am J Biochem Biotechnol. 2006;2(2):49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Appleford MR, Oh S, Oh N, Ong JL. In vivo study on hydroxyapatite scaffolds with trabecular architecture for bone repair. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009;89(4):1019–27.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilian O, Wenisch S, Karnati S, Baumgart-Vogt E, Hild A, Fuhrmann R, et al. Observations on the microvasculature of bone defects filled with biodegradable nanoparticulate hydroxyapatite. Biomaterials. 2008;29(24–25):3429–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yoshikawa T, Ohgushi H, Nakajima H, Yamada E, Ichijima K, Tamai S, et al. In vivo osteogenic durability of cultured bone in porous ceramics: a novel method for autogenous bone graft substitution. Transplantation. 2000;69(1):128–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costantino PD, Friedman CD, Jones K, Chow LC, Pelzer HJ, Sisson GA Sr. Hydroxyapatite cement. I. Basic chemistry and histologic properties. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;17(4):379–84.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ohgushi H, Dohi Y, Tamai S, Tabata S. Osteogenic differentiation of marrow stromal stem cells in porous hydroxyapatite ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993;27(11):1401–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuboki Y, Jin Q, Takita H. Geometry of carriers controlling phenotypic expression in BMP-induced osteogenesis and chondrogenesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:S105–15.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin RB, Chapman MW, Sharkey NA, Zissimos SL, Bay B, Shors EC. Bone ingrowth and mechanical properties of coralline hydroxyapatite 1 yr after implantation. Biomaterials. 1993;14(5):341–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mastrogiacomo M, Scaglione S, Martinetti R, Dolcini L, Beltrame F, Cancedda R, et al. Role of scaffold internal structure on in vivo bone formation in macroporous calcium phosphate bioceramics. Biomaterials. 2006;27(17):3230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Daculsi G, Passuti N. Effect of the macroporosity for osseous substitution of calcium phosphate ceramics. Biomaterials. 1990;11:86–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gauthier O, Bouler JM, Aguado E, Pilet P, Daculsi G. Macroporous biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics: influence of macropore diameter and macroporosity percentage on bone ingrowth. Biomaterials. 1998;19(1–3):133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shimazaki K, Mooney V. Comparative study of porous hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate as bone substitute. J Orthop Res. 1985;3(3):301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005;26(27):5474–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stubbs D, Deakin M, Chapman-Sheath P, Bruce W, Debes J, Gillies RM, et al. In vivo evaluation of resorbable bone graft substitutes in a rabbit tibial defect model. Biomaterials. 2004;25(20):5037–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lu JX, Gallur A, Flautre B, Anselme K, Descamps M, Thierry B, et al. Comparative study of tissue reactions to calcium phosphate ceramics among cancellous, cortical, and medullar bone sites in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;42(3):357–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bowers KW, Edmonds JL, Girod DA, Jayaraman G, Chua CP, Toby EB. Osteocutaneous radial forearm free flaps. The necessity of internal fixation of the donor-site defect to prevent pathological fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(5):694–704.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cui X, Zhang B, Wang Y, Gao Y. Effects of chitosan-coated pressed calcium sulfate pellet combined with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 on restoration of segmental bone defect. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(2):459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shafiei Z, Bigham AS, Dehghani SN, Nezhad ST. Fresh cortical autograft versus fresh cortical allograft effects on experimental bone healing in rabbits: radiological, histopathological and biomechanical evaluation. Cell Tissue Bank. 2009;10(1):19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mori M, Isobe M, Yamazaki Y, Ishihara K, Nakabayashi N. Restoration of segmental bone defects in rabbit radius by biodegradable capsules containing recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;50(2):191–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaito T, Myoui A, Takaoka K, Saito N, Nishikawa M, Tamai N, et al. Potentiation of the activity of bone morphogenetic protein-2 in bone regeneration by a pla-peg/hydroxyapatite composite. Biomaterials. 2005;26(1):73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Draper ER, Goodship AE. A novel technique for four-point bending of small bone samples with semi-automatic analysis. J Biomech. 2003;36(10):1497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu Y, Lu Y, Tian X, Cui G, Zhao Y, Yang Q, et al. Segmental bone regeneration using an rhBMP-2-loaded gelatin/nanohydroxyapatite/fibrin scaffold in a rabbit model. Biomaterials. 2009;30(31):6276–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu T, Nan K, Chen J, Jin D, Jiang S, Zhao P, et al. A new bone repair scaffold combined with chitosan/hydroxyapatite and sustained releasing icariin. Chin Sci Bull. 2009;54(17):2953–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Issa JPM, Bentley MVLB, Iyomasa MM, Sebald W, Albuquerque RFD. Sustained release carriers used to delivery bone morphogenetic proteins in the bone healing process. Anat Histol Embryol. 2008;37(3):181–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teja Guda
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • John A. Walker
    • 1
  • Beth E. Pollot
    • 2
  • Mark R. Appleford
    • 2
  • Sunho Oh
    • 2
  • Joo L. Ong
    • 2
  • Joseph C. Wenke
    • 1
  1. 1.Extremity Trauma and Regenerative Medicine Task AreaUnited States Army Institute of Surgical ResearchFort Sam HoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringThe University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  3. 3.Wake Forest Institute of Regenerative MedicineWake Forest University Health SciencesWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations