Bioactive polymethyl methacrylate-based bone cement: comparison of glass beads, apatite- and wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic, and hydroxyapatite fillers on mechanical and biological properties.

A new bioactive bone cement (designated GBC) consisting of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as an organic matrix and bioactive glass beads as an inorganic filler has been developed. The bioactive beads, consisting of MgO-CaO-SiO(2)-P(2)O(5)-CaF(2) glass, have been newly designed, and a novel PMMA powder was selected. The purpose of the present study was to compare this new bone cement GBC's mechanical properties in vitro and its osteoconductivity in vivo with cements consisting of the same matrix as GBC and either apatite- and wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic (AW-GC) powder (designated AWC) or sintered hydroxyapatite (HA) powder (HAC). Each filler added to the cements amounted to 70 wt %. The bending strength of GBC was significantly higher than that of AWC and HAC (p < 0.0001). Cements were packed into intramedullar canals of rat tibiae in order to evaluate osteoconductivity as determined by an affinity index. Rats were sacrificed at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after operation. An affinity index, which equaled the length of bone in direct contact with the cement expressed as a percentage of the total length of the cement surface, was calculated for each cement. At each time interval studied, GBC showed a significantly higher affinity index than AWC or HAC up to 8 weeks after implantation (p < 0.03). The value for GBC increased significantly with time up to 8 weeks (p < 0.006). The handling property of GBC was comparable with that of PMMA bone cement. Our study revealed that the higher osteoconductivity of GBC was due to the higher bioactivity of the bioactive glass beads at the cement surface and the lower solubility of the new PMMA powder to MMA monomer. In addition, it was found that the smaller spherical shape and glassy phase of the glass beads gave GBC strong enough mechanical properties to be useful under weight-bearing conditions. GBC shows promise as an alternative with improved properties to the conventionally used PMMA bone cement.

[1]  R. Bowen Particle distribution in reinforced polymer , 1964 .

[2]  J. Powers,et al.  Properties of microfilled and visible light-cured composite resins. , 1979, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[3]  Sumio Sakka,et al.  Mechanical properties of a new type of apatite-containing glass-ceramic for prosthetic application , 1985 .

[4]  K. Kawanabe,et al.  Effect of polymerization reaction inhibitor on mechanical properties and surface reactivity of bioactive bone cement. , 1998, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[5]  K. Hayashi,et al.  Re-evaluation of the biocompatibility of bioinert ceramics in vivo. , 1992, Biomaterials.

[6]  T. Kokubo,et al.  Bioactive bone cement: comparison of apatite and wollastonite containing glass-ceramic, hydroxyapatite, and beta-tricalcium phosphate fillers on bone-bonding strength. , 1998, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[7]  W. Ege,et al.  Investigations with bioactivated polymethylmethacrylates. , 1979, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[8]  J. Tamura,et al.  Bioactive bone cement: comparison of AW-GC filler with hydroxyapatite and beta-TCP fillers on mechanical and biological properties. , 1997, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[9]  M. Freeman,et al.  Observations upon the interface between bone and polymethylmethacrylate cement. , 1982, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[10]  K. Kawanabe,et al.  Intercalary replacement of canine femora using a new bioactive bone cement. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[11]  T. Kokubo,et al.  Bone-bonding behavior of alumina bead composite. , 1999, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[12]  W. Maloney,et al.  Bone lysis in well-fixed cemented femoral components. , 1990, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[13]  K. Kawanabe,et al.  Mechanical and biological properties of two types of bioactive bone cements containing MgO-CaO-SiO2-P2O5-CaF2 glass and glass-ceramic powder. , 1996, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[14]  T Kitsugi,et al.  Solutions able to reproduce in vivo surface-structure changes in bioactive glass-ceramic A-W. , 1990, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[15]  J. Tamura,et al.  Mechanical and biological properties of bioactive bone cement containing silica glass powder. , 1997, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[16]  T. Yamamuro,et al.  Prosthetic Replacement of the Hip in Dogs Using Bioactive Bone Cement , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  T. Yamamuro,et al.  Bone bonding behavior of MgO-CaO-SiO2-P2O5-CaF2 glass (mother glass of A.W-glass-ceramics). , 1989, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[18]  I. Kangasniemi,et al.  Polymethylmethacrylate composites: disturbed bone formation at the surface of bioactive glass and hydroxyapatite. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[19]  T. Kokubo,et al.  Direct bone formation on alumina bead composite. , 1997, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[20]  T. Kokubo,et al.  Surface structural change of bioactive inorganic filler-resin composite cement in simulated body fluid : Effect of resin , 1998 .

[21]  Andrew J. Gellman,et al.  Organofunctional silanes as adhesion promoters: direct characterization of the polymer/silane interphase , 1992 .

[22]  Y. Kitamura,et al.  Evaluation of bioactive bone cement in canine total hip arthroplasty. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[23]  K. Ishihara,et al.  Performance of adhesive bone cement containing hydroxyapatite particles. , 1998, Biomaterials.

[24]  K. Kawai,et al.  Effect of particle variation on wear rates of posterior composites. , 1995, American journal of dentistry.

[25]  H. Shintani,et al.  Residual monomers (TEGDMA and Bis-GMA) of a set visible-light-cured dental composite resin when immersed in water. , 1991, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[26]  K. Kawanabe,et al.  A new bioactive bone cement consisting of BIS-GMA resin and bioactive glass powder. , 1993, Journal of applied biomaterials : an official journal of the Society for Biomaterials.

[27]  J. Tamura,et al.  Bioactive bone cement: effect of the amount of glass-ceramic powder on bone-bonding strength. , 1998, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[28]  T. Eliades,et al.  Residual monomer leaching from chemically cured and visible light-cured orthodontic adhesives. , 1995, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[29]  S. Pal,et al.  Mechanical properties of bone cement: a review. , 1984, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[30]  M. Neo,et al.  Bioactive bone cement: effect of surface curing properties on bone-bonding strength. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[31]  T. Cuadrado,et al.  Polymethylmethacrylate-based bone cement modified with hydroxyapatite. , 1999, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[32]  T. Kokubo,et al.  Effect of bioactive filler content on mechanical properties and osteoconductivity of bioactive bone cement. , 1999, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[33]  K. Ishihara,et al.  Adhesive bone cement containing hydroxyapatite particle as bone compatible filler. , 1992, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[34]  Y. Ikada,et al.  Occlusive effects of lactic acid-glycolic acid copolymer membrane on gingival fibroblasts in vitro. , 1998, Journal of biomedical materials research.