Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Characterization of porous glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) implant structures: porosity and mechanical properties

  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to characterize the microstructure and mechanical properties of porous fiber-reinforced composites (FRC). Implants made of the FRC structures are intended for cranial applications. The FRC specimens were prepared by impregnating E-glass fiber sheet with non-resorbable bifunctional bis-phenyl glycidyl dimethacrylate and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate resin matrix. Four groups of porous FRC specimens were prepared with a different amount of resin matrix. Control group contained specimens of fibers, which were bound together with sizing only. Microstructure of the specimens was analyzed using a micro computed tomography (micro-CT) based method. Mechanical properties of the specimens were measured with a tensile test. The amount of resin matrix in the specimens had an effect on the microstructure. Total porosity was 59.5 % (median) in the group with the lowest resin content and 11.2 % (median) in the group with the highest resin content. In control group, total porosity was 94.2 % (median). Correlations with resin content were obtained for all micro-CT based parameters except TbPf. The tensile strength of the composites was 21.3 MPa (median) in the group with the highest resin content and 43.4 MPa (median) in the group with the highest resin content. The tensile strength in control group was 18.9 MPa (median). There were strong correlations between the tensile strength of the specimens and most of the micro-CT based parameters. This experiment suggests that porous FRC structures may have the potential for use in implants for cranial bone reconstructions, provided further relevant in vitro and in vivo tests are performed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of acrylic resin polymers reinforced composite with unidirectional and woven glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:318–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Vallittu PK, Sevelius C. Resin-bonded, glass fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:413–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tuusa SM, Peltola MJ, Tirri T, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Frontal bone defect repair with experimental glass-fiber-reinforced composite with bioactive glass granule coating. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007;82:149–55.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tuusa SM-R, Peltola MJ, Tirri T, Puska MA, Röyttä M, Aho H, Sandholm J, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Reconstruction of critical size calvarial bone defects in rabbits with glass-fibre-reinforced composite with bioactive glass granule coating. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007;82:149–55.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aitasalo K, Rekola J, Piitulainen J, Vallittu PK. Craniofacial bone reconstruction with a novel bioactive composite implant. J Neurol Surg B. 2012;73:A099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aitasalo KM, Piitulainen JM, Rekola J, Vallittu PK. Craniofacial bone reconstruction with bioactive fibre-reinforced composite implant. Head Neck. 2013 in press.

  7. Nganga S, Zhang D, Moritz N, Vallittu PK, Hupa L. Multi-layer porous fiber-reinforced composites for implants: in vitro calcium phosphate formation in the presence of bioactive glass. Dent Mater. 2012;28(11):1134–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. ASTM D638-00. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. The American Society for Testing and Materials; 2000.

  9. ISO 527. Plastics - Determination of tensile properties. The International Organization for Standardization; 1997.

  10. Hulbert SF, Young FA, Mathews RS, Klawitter JJ, Talbert CD, Stelling FH. Potential of ceramic materials as permanently implantable skeletal prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res. 1970;4:433–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kienapfel H, Sprey C, Wilke A, Griss P. Implant fixation by bone ingrowth. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:355–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5474–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jones JR, Atwood RC, Poologasundarampillai G, Yue S, Lee PD. Quantifying the 3D macrostructure of tissue scaffolds. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009;2:463–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Itälä AI, Ylänen HO, Ekholm C, Karlson KH, Aro HT. Pore diameter of more than 100 μm is not requisite for bone ingrowth in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58(6):679–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feldkamp LA, Goldstein SA, Parfitt AM, Jesion G, Kleerekoper M. The direct examination of three-dimensional bone architecture in vitro by computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. 1989;4:3–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Parfitt A, Drezner M, Glorieux F, Kanis J, Recker R. Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols and units. J Bone Miner Res. 1987;2:595–610.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Odgaard A, Gundersen HJ. Quantification of connectivity in cancellous bone, with special emphasis on 3D reconstructions. Bone. 1993;14(2):173–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Odgaard A. Three-dimensional methods for quantification of cancellous bone architecture. Bone. 1997;20(4):315–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hildebrand T, Rüegsegger P. A new method for model-independent assesment of thickness in three-dimensional images. J Microscopy. 1997;185(1):67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goulet RW, Goldstein SA, Ciarelli MJ, Kuhn JL, Brown MB, Feldkamp LA. The relationship between the structural and orthogonal compressive properties of trabecular bone. J Biomech. 1994;27(4):375–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ho ST, Hutmacher DW. A comparison of micro CT with other techniques used in the characterization of scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2006;27:1362–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jones AC, Milthorpe B, Averdunk H, Limaye A, Senden TJ, Sakellariou A, et al. Analysis of 3D bone ingrowth into polymer scaffolds via micro-computed tomography imaging. Biomaterials. 2004;25:4947–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Otsuki B, Takemoto M, Fujibayashi S, Neo M, Kokubo T, Nakamura T. Pore throat size and connectivity determine bone and tissue ingrowth into porous implants: three-dimensional micro-CT based structural analyses of porous bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials. 2006;27:5892–900.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Moore MJ, Jabbari E, Ritman EL, Lu L, Currier BL, Windebank AJ, Yaszemski MJ. Quantitative analysis of interconnectivity of porous biodegradable scaffolds with micro-computed tomography. J Biomed Mater Res. 2004;71A(2):258–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Weber E, Fernandez M, Wapner P, Hoffman W. Comparison of X-ray micro-tomography measurements of densities and porosity principally to values measured by mercury porosimetry for carbon–carbon composite. Carbon. 2010;48:2151–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Spowage AC, Shacklock AP, Malcom AA, May SL, Tong L, Kennedy AR. Development of characterization methodologies for macroporous materials. J Porous Mater. 2006;13:431–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chu TMG, Orton DG, Hollister SJ, Feinberg SE, Halloran JW. Mechanical and in vivo performance of hydroxyapatite implants with controlled architectures. Biomaterials. 2002;23:1283–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Davis JR. Tensile testing. 2nd ed. ASM International; 2004.

  29. McElhaney JH, Fogle JL, Melvin JW, Haynes RR, Roberts VL, Alem NM. Mechanical properties of cranial bone. J Biomech. 1970;3(5):495–511.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Wood JL. Dynamic response of human cranial bone. J Biomech. 1971;4(1):1–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Keller TS, Liebschner MA. Tensile and compression testing of bone. In: An YH, Draughn RA, eds. Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. CRC Press; 1999. pp 175–205.

  32. Motherway JA, Verschueren P, Van der Perre G, Vander Sloten J, Gilchrist MD. The mechanical properties of cranial bone: the effect of loading rate and cranial sampling position. J Biomech. 2009;42(13):2129–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. An YH. Mechanical properties of bone. In: An YH, Draughn RA, editors. Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. CRC Press; 1999. pp 41–63.

  34. Lethaus B, Laak MP, Leaven P, Beerens M., Koper D, Poukens J, Kessler P. A treatment algorithm for patient with large skull bone defect and first results. J Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2011;39(6):435–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by TEKES (MIKAMA-project, grant #40095/07). AY-S whishes to thank the laboratory personnel of Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre -TCBC for their help during the laboratory work. Study belongs to the activity of BioCity Turku Biomaterialds Research Program (www.biomaterials.utu.fi). In the memory of Dr. Matti Peltola, DDS, MD, PhD 1961–2011.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic Research Unit, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, University of Turku, 20520, Turku, Finland

    Anne Ylä-Soininmäki, Niko Moritz & Hannu T. Aro

  2. Department of Biomaterials Science, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Niko Moritz, Lippo V. J. Lassila & Pekka K. Vallittu

  3. Biocity Turku Biomaterials Research Program, Turku Clinical Biomaterial Centre—TCBC, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 4B (PharmaCity), 20520, Turku, Finland

    Niko Moritz

  4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Turku University Hospital, 20520, Turku, Finland

    Matti Peltola

Authors
  1. Anne Ylä-Soininmäki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niko Moritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lippo V. J. Lassila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matti Peltola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hannu T. Aro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pekka K. Vallittu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niko Moritz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ylä-Soininmäki, A., Moritz, N., Lassila, L.V.J. et al. Characterization of porous glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) implant structures: porosity and mechanical properties. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 24, 2683–2693 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-013-5023-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-013-5023-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation