Premium
Role of porosity and pore architecture in the in vivo bone regeneration capacity of biodegradable glass scaffolds
Author(s) -
Sanzana Edgardo S.,
Navarro Melba,
Ginebra MariaPau,
Planell Josep A.,
Ojeda Alvaro C.,
Montecinos Hernan A.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part a
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.849
H-Index - 150
eISSN - 1552-4965
pISSN - 1549-3296
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.a.34845
Subject(s) - materials science , porosity , biomaterial , osseointegration , composite material , in vivo , biomedical engineering , bioactive glass , microstructure , chemical engineering , implant , nanotechnology , surgery , medicine , microbiology and biotechnology , biology , engineering
The aim of this work is to shed light on the role of porosity and pore architecture in the in vivo bone regeneration capacity of biodegradable glass scaffolds. A calcium phosphate glass in the system P 2 O 5 –CaO–Na 2 O–TiO 2 was foamed using two different porogens, namely albumen and hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ); the resulting three‐dimensional porous structures were characterized and implanted in New Zealand rabbits to study their in vivo behavior. Scaffolds foamed with albumen displayed a monomodal pore size distribution centered around 150 μm and a porosity of 82%, whereas scaffolds foamed with H 2 O 2 showed lower porosity (37%), with larger elongated pores, and multimodal size distribution. After 12 weeks of implantation, histology results revealed a good osteointegration for both types of scaffolds. The quantitative morphometric analysis showed the substitution of the biomaterial by new bone in the case of glasses foamed with albumen. In contrast, bone neoformation and material resorption were significantly lower in the defects filled with the scaffolds foamed with H 2 O 2 . The results obtained in this study showed that both calcium phosphate glass scaffolds were osteoconductive, biocompatible, and biodegradable materials. However, differences in porosity, pore architecture, and microstructure led to substantially different in vivo response. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 102A: 1767–1773, 2014.