Premium
Efficacy of a small cell‐binding peptide coated hydroxyapatite substitute on bone formation and implant fixation in sheep
Author(s) -
Ding Ming,
Andreasen Christina M.,
Dencker Mads L.,
Jensen Anders E.,
Theilgaard Naseem,
Overgaard Søren
Publication year - 2015
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.35281
Subject(s) - implant , fixation (population genetics) , materials science , osseointegration , biomedical engineering , biomaterial , bone remodeling , titanium , bone healing , dentistry , surgery , anatomy , biology , medicine , nanotechnology , biochemistry , endocrinology , gene , metallurgy
Cylindrical critical size defects were created at the distal femoral condyles bilaterally of eight female adult sheep. Titanium implants with 2‐mm concentric gaps were inserted and the gaps were filled with one of the four materials: allograft; a synthetic 15‐amino acid cell‐binding peptide coated hydroxyapatite (ABM/P‐15); hydroxyapatite + βtricalciumphosphate+ Poly‐Lactic‐Acid (HA/βTCP‐PDLLA); or ABM/P‐15+HA/βTCP‐PDLLA. After nine weeks, bone‐implant blocks were harvested and sectioned for micro‐CT scanning, push‐out test, and histomorphometry. Significant bone formation and implant fixation could be observed in all four groups. Interestingly, the microarchitecture of the ABM/P‐15 group was significantly different from the control group. Tissue volume fraction and thickness were significantly greater in the ABM/P‐15 group than in the allograft group. Bone formation and bone ingrowth to porous titanium implant were not significantly different among the four groups. The ABM/P‐15 group had similar shear mechanical properties on implant fixation as the allograft group. Adding HA/βTCP‐PDLLA to ABM/P‐15 did not significantly change these parameters. This study revealed that ABM/P‐15 had significantly bone formation in concentric gap, and its enhancements on bone formation and implant fixation were at least as good as allograft. It is suggested that ABM/P‐15 might be a good alternative biomaterial for bone implant fixation in this well‐validated critical‐size defect gap model in sheep. Nevertheless, future clinical researches should focus on prospective, randomized, controlled trials in order to fully elucidate whether ABM/P‐15 could be a feasible candidate for bone substitute material in orthopedic practices. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 103A: 1357–1365, 2015.