Comparison of effects of MPTCP and PTCP ceramics implanted for the treatment of bone defects in rabbits

Abstract

The magnetic porous tricalcium phosphate (MPTCP) and porous tricalcium phosphate (PTCP) ceramic cylinders were implanted into right and left bone defects of rabbits’ radii in order to determine the utility of the MPTCP ceramics. Based on naked eye inspection, light and scanning electron microphotography, roentgenography, quantitative histological measurement of new bone formation and anti-break test for a period of 5 months. The results showed that the two kinds of ceramics were biocompatible with human tissue. MPTCP ceramics could induce more new bone formation than PTCP ceramics. Treatment of fractures with synthetic calcium phosphate ceramics and magnetic fields were discussed.

Keywords

ceramics / bone / magnetic fields

References

[1] DaculsiG, PassutiN, MartinS, et al.. Comparative study of bioactive calcium phosphate ceramics after implantation in spongy bone in dogs. Histologic ultrastructural and electron probe microanalysis. Rev Chir Orthop, 1989, 75(2): 65-65

[2] GohJ C H, BoseK, KangY K, et al.. Effect of electrical stimulation on the biomechanical properties of fracture healing in the rabbits. Clin Orthop, 1988, 233: 268-268

[3] WuH, ZhuT B, DuJ Y, et al.. Analysis of the biocompatibility of magnetic porous tricalcium phosphate ceramics in rat femurs. J Tongji Med Univ, 1992, 12(2): 111-111

[4] UristM R. Bone regeneration under the influence of a bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) beta tricalcium phosphate (TCP) composite in skull trephine defects in dogs. Clin Orthop, 1987, 214: 295-295

[5] KitsugiT, YamamuroT, TakeuchiH, et al.. Bonding behavior of three types of hydroxyapatite with different sintering temperatures implanted in bone. Clin Orthop, 1988, 234: 280-280

[6] HollingerJ O. Biodegradable bone repair materials. Clin Orthop, 1986, 207: 290-290

[7] DuchegneP. Bioceramics: material characteristics versus in vivo behavior. J Biomed Mater Res, 1987, 21(A2): 219-219

[8] SharrardW J, SutcliffeM L, RobsonM J, et al.. The treatment of fibrous non —union of fractures by pulsing electromagnetic stimulation. J Bone Joint Surg, 1982, 64-B(2): 189-189

[9] BassettC A L, MitchellS N, GastonS R, et al.. Treatment of ununited tibial diaphyseal fractures with pulsing electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg, 1981, 63-A(4): 511-511

[10] BassettC A L. Pulsing electromagnetic field treatment in ununited fractures and failed arthrodeses. JAMA., 1982, 247: 623-623

[11] BassettC A L. The development and application of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMFs) for ununited fractures and arthrodeses. Orthop Clin North Am, 1984, 15: 61-61

[12] LavineL S. Current concepts review. Electrical stimulation of repair of bone. J Bone Joint Surg, 1987, 69-A(4): 626-626

[13] BassettC A L. Fundamental and practical aspects of therapeutic uses of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs). Crit Rev Biomtd Eng, 1989, 17(5): 451-451

[14] HaasW G, BeaupreA, CameronH, et al.. The Canadian experience with pulsed magnetic fields in the treatment of ununited tibial fractures. Clin Orthop, 1986, 208: 55-55

[15] FrykmanG K, TaleisnikJ, PetersG, et al.. The treatment of nonunited scaphoid fractures by pulsed electromagnetic field and cast. J Hand Surg Am, 1986, 11(3): 344-344

[16] WuH, ZhuT B, DuJ Y, et al.. New bone formation in the in vivo implantation of bioceramics: a quantitative analysis. Chinese Med J, 1992, 105(9): 753-753