Premium
Demineralized bone matrix and human cancellous bone enhance fixation of porous‐coated titanium implants in sheep
Author(s) -
Babiker Hassan,
Ding Ming,
Overgaard Søren
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.835
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1932-7005
pISSN - 1932-6254
DOI - 10.1002/term.1685
Subject(s) - dbm , demineralized bone matrix , cancellous bone , biomedical engineering , implant , fixation (population genetics) , materials science , titanium , dentistry , biocompatibility , medicine , surgery , amplifier , population , optoelectronics , environmental health , cmos , metallurgy
Abstract Allogenic bone graft has been considered the gold standard in connection with bone graft material in revision joint arthroplasty. However, the lack of osteogenic potential and the risk of disease transmission are clinical challenges. The use of osteoinductive materials, such as demineralized bone matrix (DBM), alone or in combination with allograft or commercially available human cancellous bone (CB), may replace allografts, as they have the capability of inducing new bone and improving implant fixation through enhancing bone ongrowth. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of DBM alone, DBM with CB, or allograft on the fixation of porous‐coated titanium implants. DBM100 and CB produced from human tissue were included. Both materials are commercially available. DBM granules are placed in pure DBM and do not contain any other carrier. Titanium alloy implants, 10 mm long × 10 mm diameter, were inserted bilaterally into the femoral condyles of eight skeletally mature sheep. Thus, four implants with a concentric gap of 2 mm were implanted in each sheep. The gap was filled with: (a) DBM; (b) DBM:CB at a ratio of 1:3; (c) DBM:allograft at a ratio of 1:3; or (d) allograft (gold standard), respectively. A standardized surgical procedure was used. At sacrifice 6 weeks after implantation, both distal femurs were harvested. The implant fixation was evaluated by mechanical push‐out testing to test shear mechanical properties between implant and the host bone and by histomorphometry. Non‐parametric tests were applied; p < 0.05 was considered significant. Mechanical fixation showed that the strengths among the DBM/CB, DBM/allograft and allograft groups were not statistically different. The strength of the DBM group was 0.01 MPa, which was statistical significantly lower than the other three groups ( p < 0.05). Histomorphometry results showed that the bone ongrowth in the DBM group was statistically significantly lower than the other three groups, while the volume fraction of new bone showed no significant difference among all the groups. Our data revealed that adding DBM to CB or to allograft resulted in comparable mechanical properties relative to the gold standard, allograft. We found inferior early effects of DBM alone on the fixation of porous‐coated titanium implant in this animal model, while the long‐term effects have to be investigated. The combination of DBM with CB, which can be used off the shelf, may represent an alternative to allograft. A cost–benefit analysis is necessary before application in clinical trial. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.