Premium
The effect of increased microporosity on bone formation within silicate‐substituted scaffolds in an ovine posterolateral spinal fusion model
Author(s) -
Coathup Melanie Jean,
Blunn Gordon William,
Campion Charlie,
Ho ChihYuan,
Hing Karin Angela
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part b: applied biomaterials
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 1552-4981
pISSN - 1552-4973
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.b.33614
Subject(s) - apposition , bone formation , resorption , bone resorption , implant , spinal fusion , fusion , anatomy , materials science , biomedical engineering , chemistry , dentistry , medicine , surgery , pathology , linguistics , philosophy
This study compared the bone forming capacity of the same formulation of silicate‐substituted bone graft substitute materials with different microporosity in an instrumented posterolateral spinal fusion ovine model. Materials with a strut porosity of (i) 22.5% (SiCaP) or (ii) 36.0% (SiCaP(+)) were packed along either side of the spine. Bone apposition rates, % new bone formation, % bone‐implant contact, and % graft resorption were quantified at 8, 12, and 24 weeks post surgery. Computed Tomography (CT) was used to grade the formation of fusion bridges between vertebrae. Results showed no significant difference in bone apposition rates, % new bone formation, and % bone‐implant contact when the two materials were compared. However, at 8 weeks, a significantly higher CT score was obtained in the SiCaP(+) group (0.83 ± 0.17) when compared with the SiCaP group (0.17 ± 0.17; p = 0.027). Significantly less scaffold remained in the SiCaP(+) group at 12 weeks ( p = 0.018). Both SiCaP and SiCaP(+) formulations augmented bone formation. Increasing the strut porosity did not significantly increase bone formation however, at 8 weeks it promoted the formation of more highly mineralized bone resulting in a significantly higher CT score, suggesting the bone tissue formed was more mature. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 105B: 805–814, 2017.