1993•Journal of Applied BiomaterialsRequires access

A study of the bioactive bone cement–bone interface: Quantitative and histological evaluation

Naomi Nishimura, Yasushi Taguchi, Takao Yamamuro, Takashi Nakamura, Tadashi Kokubo, Satoru Yoshihara

Open publisher page 6 citations

Abstract

The interface between bone and a bioactive glass cement--a mixture of bioactive glass powder and ammonium phosphate solution, previously reported on by the authors--was evaluated quantitatively and histologically. The materials tested were (1) the original bioactive glass cement (BCI cement); (2) an improved type of bioactive glass cement (BCII cement); (3) polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement; and (4) a bioactive, apatite-wollastonite-containing, glass ceramic (A-WGC). Hardened cylindrical specimens of each cement were inserted loosely into canine femora and the interfacial shear strengths were measured using a push-out test. The interfacial strength values of the bioactive glass cements increased with prolonged implantation time. At each postimplantation time studied (8, 12, and 24 weeks), the interfacial strength value of BCI cement did not differ significantly from that of A-WGC. BCII cement interfacial strength was greater than that of BCI cement, whereas the interfacial strength of PMMA bone cement remained at a very low level throughout the study. Histological examinations revealed that direct bonding of both bioactive glass cements to bone had occurred without pathologic degradation. After 24 weeks, the defects between the bone and the bioactive glass cements had been filled with mature lamellar bone. Because the bioactive glass cement system developed by the authors, especially BCII cement, shows excellent osteoconductivity and bonds to bone tightly, we consider it to be a promising material for fixing prostheses into bone.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The interface between bone and a bioactive glass cement--a mixture of bioactive glass powder and ammonium phosphate solution, previously reported on by the authors--was evaluated quantitatively and histologically. The materials tested were (1) the original bioactive glass cement (BCI cement); (2) an improved type of bioactive glass cement (BCII cement); (3) polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement; and (4) a bioactive, apatite-wollastonite-containing, glass ceramic (A-WGC). Hardened cylindrical specimens of each cement were inserted loosely into canine femora and the interfacial shear strengths were measured using a push-out test. The interfacial strength values of the bioactive glass cements increased with prolonged implantation time. At each postimplantation time studied (8, 12, and 24 weeks), the interfacial strength value of BCI cement did not differ significantly from that of A-WGC. BCII cement interfacial strength was greater than that of BCI cement, whereas the interfacial strength of PMMA bone cement remained at a very low level throughout the study. Histological examinations revealed that direct bonding of both bioactive glass cements to bone had occurred without pathologic degradation. After 24 weeks, the defects between the bone and the bioactive glass cements had been filled with mature lamellar bone. Because the bioactive glass cement system developed by the authors, especially BCII cement, shows excellent osteoconductivity and bonds to bone tightly, we consider it to be a promising material for fixing prostheses into bone.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The interface between bone and a bioactive glass cement--a mixture of bioactive glass powder and ammonium phosphate solution, previously reported on by the authors--was evaluated quantitatively and histologically. The materials tested were (1) the original bioactive glass cement (BCI cement); (2) an improved type of bioactive glass cement (BCII cement); (3) polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement; and (4) a bioactive, apatite-wollastonite-containing, glass ceramic (A-WGC). Hardened cylindrical specimens of each cement were inserted loosely into canine femora and the interfacial shear strengths were measured using a push-out test. The interfacial strength values of the bioactive glass cements increased with prolonged implantation time. At each postimplantation time studied (8, 12, and 24 weeks), the interfacial strength value of BCI cement did not differ significantly from that of A-WGC. BCII cement interfacial strength was greater than that of BCI cement, whereas the interfacial strength of PMMA bone cement remained at a very low level throughout the study. Histological examinations revealed that direct bonding of both bioactive glass cements to bone had occurred without pathologic degradation. After 24 weeks, the defects between the bone and the bioactive glass cements had been filled with mature lamellar bone. Because the bioactive glass cement system developed by the authors, especially BCII cement, shows excellent osteoconductivity and bonds to bone tightly, we consider it to be a promising material for fixing prostheses into bone.

Key concepts: Cement, Materials science, Bone cement, Interface (matter), Biomedical engineering, Composite material, Medicine, Capillary action

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A study of the bioactive bone cement–bone interface: Quantitative and histological evaluation — Research Paper | ScholarLens