A variety of synthetic materials are currently in use as bone substitutes, among them a new calcium phosphate-based multichannel, cylindrical, granular bone substitute that is showing satisfactory biocompatibility and osteoconductivity in clinical applications. These cylindrical granules differ in their mechanical and morphological characteristics such as size, diameter, surface area, pore size, and porosity. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the sizes of these synthetic granules and the resultant inter-granular spaces formed by their filling critical-sized bone defects affect new bone formation characteristics and to determine the best formulations from these individual types by combining the granules in different proportions to optimize the bone tissue regeneration. We evaluated two types of multichanneled cylindrical granules, 1 mm and 3 mm in diameter, combined the granules in two different proportions (wt%), and compared their different mechanical, morphological, and in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility characteristics. We assessed in vitro biocompatibility and cytotoxicity using MC3T3-E1 osteoblast-like cells using MTT (3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay and confocal imaging. In vivo investigation in a rabbit model indicated that all four samples formed significantly better bone than the control after four weeks and eight weeks of implantation. Micro-computed tomography analysis showed more bone formation by the 1 mm cylindrical granules with 160 ± 10 µm channeled pore and 50% porosity than the other three samples (p<.05), which we confirmed by histological analysis.
KeatingJF andMcQueenMM.Substitutes for autologous bone graft in orthopaedic trauma. J Bone Jt Surg2001;
83: 3–8.
2.
De LongWGEinhornTAKovalKet al.
Bone grafts and bone graft substitutes in orthopaedic trauma surgery. A critical analysis. J Bone Jt Surg2007;
89: 649–658.
3.
MarshD.Concepts of fracture union, delayed union, and nonunion. Clin Orthop Relat Res1998;Oct: S22–30.
4.
GiannoudisPVDinopoulosH andTsiridisE.Bone substitutes: an update. Injury2005;
36: S20–S27.
5.
YuanHvan BlitterswijkCAde GrootKet al.
A comparison of bone formation in biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and hydroxyapatite (HA) implanted in muscle and bone of dogs at different time periods. J Biomed Mater Res2006;
78: 139–147.
6.
DrososGIKazakosKIKouzoumpasisPet al.
Safety and efficacy of commercially available demineralised bone matrix preparations: a critical review of clinical studies. Injury2007;
38: S13–S21.
7.
SarkarSK andLeeBT.Hard tissue regeneration using bone substitutes: an update on innovations in materials. Korean J Intern Med2015;
30: 279–293.
8.
LoboSE andArinzehTL.Biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics for bone regeneration and tissue engineering applications. Mater2010;
3: 815–826.
9.
PaulKPadalhinARLinhNTBet al.
A study of BMP-2-loaded bipotential electrolytic complex around a biphasic calcium phosphate-derived (BCP) scaffold for repair of large segmental bone defect. Plos One2016;
11: e0163708.
Lomelino RdeOCastroSIILinharesABet al.
The association of human primary bone cells with biphasic calcium phosphate (betaTCP/HA 70:30) granules increases bone repair. J Mater Sci Mater Med2012;
23: 781–788.
12.
BoulerJMPiletPGauthierOet al.
Biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics for bone reconstruction: a review of biological response. Acta Biomater2017;
53: 1–12.
13.
EbrahimiMBotelhoMG andDorozhkinSV.Biphasic calcium phosphates bioceramics (HA/TCP): concept, physicochemical properties and the impact of standardization of study protocols in biomaterials research. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2017;
71: 1293–1312.
14.
ZhuQAblikimZChenTet al.
The preparation and characterization of HA/β-TCP biphasic ceramics from fish bones. Ceram Int2017;
43: 12213–12220.
15.
LeGerosRZLinSRohanizadehRet al.
Biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics: preparation, properties and applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med2003;
14: 201–209.
16.
Kubasiewicz-RossPHadzikJSeeligerJet al.
New nano-hydroxyapatite in bone defect regeneration: a histological study in rats. Ann Anat Anatomischer Anz2017;
213: 83–90.
AltVCheungWHChowSKHet al.
Bone formation and degradation behavior of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite with or without collagen-type 1 in osteoporotic bone defects – an experimental study in osteoporotic goats. Injury2016;
47: S58–S65.
19.
OhuraKBohnerMHardouinPet al.
Resorption of, and bone formation from, new beta-tricalcium phosphate-monocalcium phosphate cements: an in vivo study. J Biomed Mater Res1996;
30: 193–200.
20.
NishinaH.An experimental comparative study of hydroxyapatite and tricalcium-phosphate as bone substitutes. Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi1989;
63: 1237–1247.
21.
SakaiSAnadaTTsuchiyaKet al.
Comparative study on the resorbability and dissolution behavior of octacalcium phosphate, beta-tricalcium phosphate, and hydroxyapatite under physiological conditions. Dent Mater J2016;
35: 216–224.
22.
YuanHVan Den DoelMLiSet al.
A comparison of the osteoinductive potential of two calcium phosphate ceramics implanted intramuscularly in goats. J Mater Sci Mater Med2002;
13: 1271–1275.
23.
BoseSRoyM andBandyopadhyayA.Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol2012;
30: 546–554.
24.
IfkovitsJLWuKMauckRLet al.
The influence of fibrous elastomer structure and porosity on matrix organization. Plos One2010;
5: e15717.
25.
KarageorgiouV andKaplanD.Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials2005;
26: 5474–5491.
26.
PetrochenkoP andNarayanRJ.Novel approaches to bone grafting: porosity, bone morphogenetic proteins, stem cells, and the periosteum. J Long Term Eff Med Implant2010;
20: 303–315.
27.
ShiXSitharamanBPhamQPet al.
Fabrication of porous ultra-short single-walled carbon nanotube nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials2007;
28: 4078–4090.
28.
HanninkG andArtsJJC.Bioresorbability, porosity and mechanical strength of bone substitutes: what is optimal for bone regeneration?Injury2011;
42: S22–S25.
29.
KimYHJyotiMAYounMHet al.
In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a macro porous beta-TCP granule-shaped bone substitute fabricated by the fibrous monolithic process. Biomed Mater Bristol Engl2010;
5: 35007.
30.
AbuevaCDGJangD-WPadalhinAet al.
Phosphonate-chitosan functionalization of a multi-channel hydroxyapatite scaffold for interfacial implant-bone tissue integration. J Mater Chem B2017;
5: 1293–1301.
31.
SarkarSKLeeBYPadalhinARet al.
Brushite-based calcium phosphate cement with multichannel hydroxyapatite granule loading for improved bone regeneration. J Biomater Appl2016;
30: 823–837.
32.
JangDWFrancoRASarkarSKet al.
Fabrication of porous hydroxyapatite scaffolds as artificial bone preform and its biocompatibility evaluation. ASAIO J Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 19922014;
60: 216–223.
33.
FaruqOKimBPadalhinARet al.
A hybrid composite system of biphasic calcium phosphate granules loaded with hyaluronic acid-gelatin hydrogel for bone regeneration. J Biomater Appl2017;
32: 433–445.
34.
LeeGHMakkarPPaulKet al.
Development of BMP-2 immobilized polydopamine mediated multichannelled biphasic calcium phosphate granules for improved bone regeneration. Mater Lett2017;
208: 122–125.
35.
KogaTMinamizatoTKawaiYet al.
Bone regeneration using dentin matrix depends on the degree of demineralization and particle size. Plos One2016;
11: e0147235.
36.
MurakamiYHondaYAnadaTet al.
Comparative study on bone regeneration by synthetic octacalcium phosphate with various granule sizes. Acta Biomater2010;
6: 1542–1548.
37.
LeeDSHPaiYChangSet al.
Microstructure, physical properties, and bone regeneration effect of the nano-sized β-tricalcium phosphate granules. Mater Sci Eng C2016;
58: 971–976.
38.
SultanaTAmirianJParkCet al.
Preparation and characterization of polycaprolactone-polyethylene glycol methyl ether and polycaprolactone-chitosan electrospun mats potential for vascular tissue engineering. J Biomater Appl2017;
32: 648–662.
39.
LeeGHMakkarPPaulKet al.
Incorporation of BMP-2 loaded collagen conjugated BCP granules in calcium phosphate cement based injectable bone substitutes for improved bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2017;
77: 713–724.
40.
OtsuN.A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern1979;
9: 62–66.
41.
AguadoEPascaretti-GrizonFGaudin-AudrainCet al.
TCP granules mixed with reticulated hyaluronic acid induce an increase in bone apposition. Biomed Mater2014;
9: 015001–015012.
42.
EbrahimiMPripatnanontPMonmaturapojNet al.
Fabrication and characterization of novel nano hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds in three different composition ratios. J Biomed Mater Res Part A2012;
100: 2260–2268.
43.
LuJXFlautreBAnselmeKet al.
Role of interconnections in porous bioceramics on bone recolonization in vitro and in vivo. J Mater Sci Mater Med1999;
10: 111–120.
44.
LohQL andChoongC.Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2013;
19: 485–502.
45.
ZhuWXiaoJWangDet al.
Experimental study of nano-HA artificial bone with different pore sizes for repairing the radial defect. Int Orthop Sicot2009;
33: 567–571.
46.
SchmitzJP andHollingerJO.The critical size defect as an experimental model for craniomandibulofacial nonunions. Clin Orthop Relat Res1986: 299–308.
47.
RouwkemaJKoopmanBFJMBlitterswijkCAVet al.
Supply of nutrients to cells in engineered tissues. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev2009;
26: 163–178.
48.
HeQChenHHuangLet al.
Porous surface modified bioactive bone cement for enhanced bone bonding. Plos One2012;
7: e42525.
49.
ChangH-I andWangY.Cell responses to surface and architecture of tissue engineering scaffolds. In: DEberli (ed.) Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering – cells and biomaterials.
Rijeka:
InTech, 2011, pp.27.
50.
von DoernbergMCvon RechenbergBBohnerMet al.
In vivo behavior of calcium phosphate scaffolds with four different pore sizes. Biomaterials2006;
27: 5186–5198.
51.
KastenPBeyenINiemeyerPet al.
Porosity and pore size of beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffold can influence protein production and osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells: an in vitro and in vivo study. Acta Biomater2008;
4: 1904–1915.
52.
FigueiredoMHenriquesJMartinsGet al.
Physicochemical characterization of biomaterials commonly used in dentistry as bone substitutes–comparison with human bone. J Biomed Mater Res2010;
92: 409–419.
53.
AlmeidaTLeite FerreiraBJMLoureiroJet al.
Preliminary evaluation of the in vitro cytotoxicity of PMMA-co-EHA bone cement. Mater Sci Eng C2011;
31: 658–662.
54.
JeongNParkJYooKet al.
Preparation, characterization, and in-vitro performance of novel injectable silanized-hydroxypropyl methylcellulose/phase-transformed calcium phosphate composite bone cements. Current Applied Physics. 2016;
16: 1523–1532.
55.
HornerABishopNJBordSet al.
Immunolocalisation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in human neonatal growth plate cartilage. J Anatomy. 1999;
194: 519–524.
56.
HeXDziakRYuanXet al.
BMP2 genetically engineered MSCs and EPCs promote vascularized bone regeneration in rat critical-sized calvarial bone defects. Plos One2013;
8: e60473.
57.
SaranUGemini PiperniS andChatterjeeS.Role of angiogenesis in bone repair. Arch Biochem Biophys2014;
561: 109–117.
58.
GauthierOGoyenvalleEBoulerJMet al.
Macroporous biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics versus injectable bone substitute: a comparative study 3 and 8 weeks after implantation in rabbit bone. J Mater Sci Mater Med2001;
12: 385–390.
59.
Polo-CorralesLLatorre-EstevesM andRamirez-VickJE.Scaffold design for bone regeneration. J Nanosci Nanotech2014;
14: 15–56.
60.
WalshWROliverRAChristouCet al.
Critical size bone defect healing using collagen–calcium phosphate bone graft materials. Plos One2017;
12: e0168883.
61.
BoulerJMPiletPGauthierOet al.
Biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics for bone reconstruction: a review of biological response. Acta Biomater2017;
53: 1–12.
62.
ZhangXZengDLiNet al.
Large-pore mesoporous Ca-Si-based bioceramics with high in vitro bioactivity and protein adsorption capability for bone tissue regeneration. J Mater Chem B2016;
4: 3916–3924.
63.
WangKZhouCHongYet al.
A review of protein adsorption on bioceramics. Interface Focus2012;
2: 259–277.
64.
SerranoJRomoEBermúdezMet al.
Bone regeneration in rat cranium critical-size defects induced by cementum protein 1 (CEMP1). Plos One2013;
8: e78807.
65.
LiXvan BlitterswijkCAFengQet al.
The effect of calcium phosphate microstructure on bone-related cells in vitro. Biomaterials2008;
29: 3306–3316.
66.
Le X, Poinern GEJ, Ali N, et al. Engineering a Biocompatible Scaffold with Either Micrometre or Nanometre Scale Surface Topography for Promoting Protein Adsorption and Cellular Response. Int J of Biomater 2013; 2013: 782549.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
