Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 16;9(1):rbac010.
doi: 10.1093/rb/rbac010. eCollection 2022.

Effects of pore interconnectivity on bone regeneration in carbonate apatite blocks

Affiliations

Effects of pore interconnectivity on bone regeneration in carbonate apatite blocks

Maab Elsheikh et al. Regen Biomater. .

Abstract

Porous architecture in bone substitutes, notably the interconnectivity of pores, is a critical factor for bone ingrowth. However, controlling the pore interconnectivity while maintaining the microarchitecture has not yet been achieved using conventional methods, such as sintering. Herein, we fabricated a porous block using the crystal growth of calcium sulfate dihydrate, and controlled the pore interconnectivity by limiting the region of crystal growth. The calcium sulfate dihydrate blocks were transformed to bone apatite, carbonate apatite (CO3Ap) through dissolution-precipitation reactions. Thus, CO3Ap blocks with 15% and 30% interconnected pore volumes were obtained while maintaining the microarchitecture: they were designated as CO3Ap-15 and CO3Ap-30, respectively. At 4 weeks after implantation in a rabbit femur defect, new bone formed throughout CO3Ap-30, whereas little bone was formed in the center region of CO3Ap-15. At 12 weeks after implantation, a large portion of CO3Ap-30 was replaced with new bone and the boundary with the host bone became blurred. In contrast, CO3Ap-15 remained in the defect and the boundary with the host bone was still clear. Thus, the interconnected pores promote bone ingrowth, followed by replacement of the material with new bone. These findings provide a useful guide for designing bone substitutes for rapid bone regeneration.

Keywords: bone regeneration; bone substitutes; carbonate apatite; pore interconnectivity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
(A) XRD patterns and (B) FTIR spectra of CO3Ap-30, CO3Ap-15 and standard HAp. The miller indices of HAp were assigned from PDF# 00-009-0432.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Photograph images of (A) CO3Ap-30 and (B) CO3Ap-15. μ-CT scanning observations of materials. μ-CT-based 3D reconstruction images of (C) CO3Ap-30 and (D) CO3Ap-15. μ-CT-based sliced images at a sagittal section of (E) CO3Ap-30 and (F) CO3Ap-15. μ-CT-based sliced images at a transverse section of (G) CO3Ap-30 and (H) CO3Ap-15. SEM images of (I) CO3Ap-30 and (J) CO3Ap-15. Magnified SEM images of (K) CO3Ap-30 and (L) CO3Ap-15.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
(A) Cumulative and (B) differential pore volume plotted as a function of pore diameter of CO3Ap-30 and CO3Ap-15. Differential pattern was best-fitted by two Lorentzian functions.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Photograph images of materials after dye penetration assay. Perspective views of (A) CO3Ap-30 and (B) CO3Ap-15. Cross-sectional views of (C) CO3Ap-30 and (D) CO3Ap-15.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
(A) Compressive strength, (B) diametral tensile strength, (C) total porosity and (D) apparent porosity of CO3Ap-30 and CO3Ap-15. *P <0.05.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
The amount of (A) calcium and (B) phosphorus released from CO3Ap-30 (black circles) and CO3Ap-15 (gray diamonds) to the HEPES buffer during 28 days of immersion measured using ICP-OES. *P <0.05.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Cell invasion assay of the samples with 3-mm thickness for 7 days of culture period. SEM images at the cell-seeded on-top surface of (A) CO3Ap-30 and (B) CO3Ap-15. SEM images at a cross-section of (C) CO3Ap-30 and (D) CO3Ap-15. SEM images at the bottom surface of (E) CO3Ap-30 and (F) CO3Ap-15. F-actins (red) and nuclei (blue) of attached cells on the bottom surface of (G) CO3Ap-30 and (H) CO3Ap-15. Magnified fluorescence images of the bottom surface of (I) CO3Ap-30 and (J) CO3Ap-15. Yellow triangles indicate cells.
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
μ-CT images of rabbit femurs with defects reconstructed by grafting CO3Ap-30 at (A) 4 weeks and (C) 12 weeks after implantation, and CO3Ap-15 at (B) 4 weeks and (D) 12 weeks after implantation
Figure 9.
Figure 9.
HE-Stained histological images of rabbit femurs with defects reconstructed by grafting (A) CO3Ap-30 and (B) CO3Ap-15 at 4 weeks after implantation. (C) and (D) show magnified versions of the images presented in (A) and (B), respectively. (E) and (F) show higher magnification images of typical regions in (A) and (B), respectively. (G) and (H) show TRAP-stained images in the region near (E) and (F), respectively. Yellow triangles, red triangles, blue triangles, ‘OB’, ‘OC’ and ‘#’denote new bone, red blood cells, adipose tissues, osteoblasts, osteoclasts and material, respectively.
Figure 10.
Figure 10.
HE-Stained histological images of rabbit femurs with defects reconstructed by grafting (A) CO3Ap-30 and (B) CO3Ap-15 at 12 weeks after implantation. (C) and (D) show magnified versions of the images presented in (A) and (B), respectively. (E) and (F) show higher magnification images of typical regions in (A) and (B), respectively. (G) and (H) show TRAP-stained images in the region near (E) and (F), respectively. Yellow triangles, red triangles, blue triangles, ‘OB’, ‘OC’ and ‘#’denote new bone, red blood cells, adipose tissues, osteoblasts, osteoclasts and material, respectively.
Figure 11.
Figure 11.
Area percentages of (A) bone and (B) remaining material in each bone defect. **P <0.01.
None

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. García-Gareta E, Coathup MJ, Blunn GW.. Osteoinduction of bone grafting materials for bone repair and regeneration. Bone 2015;81:112–21. - PubMed
    1. Calori GM, Mazza E, Colombo M, Ripamonti C.. The use of bone-graft substitutes in large bone defects: any specific needs? Injury 2011;42:S56–63. - PubMed
    1. Wang W, Yeung KW.. Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: a review. Bioact Mater 2017;2:224–47. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Panagopoulos GN, Mavrogenis AF, Mauffrey C, Lesenský J, Angelini A, Megaloikonomos PD, Igoumenou VG, Papanastassiou J, Savvidou O, Ruggieri P, Papagelopoulos PJ.. Intercalary reconstructions after bone tumor resections: a review of treatments. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2017;27:737–46. - PubMed
    1. Arrington ED, Smith WJ, Chambers HG, Bucknell Al, Davino NA.. Complications of iliac crest bone graft harvesting. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;329:300–9. - PubMed