| Title |
Biocompatibility of calcium phosphate bone cement with optimised mechanical properties: an in vivo study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-016-5806-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Iwan Palmer, John Nelson, Wolfgang Schatton, Nicholas J. Dunne, Fraser Buchanan, Susan A. Clarke |
| Abstract |
This work establishes the in vivo performance of modified calcium phosphate bone cements for vertebroplasty of spinal fractures using a lapine model. A non-modified calcium phosphate bone cement and collagen-calcium phosphate bone cements composites with enhanced mechanical properties, utilising either bovine collagen or collagen from a marine sponge, were compared to a commercial poly(methyl methacrylate) cement. Conical cement samples (8 mm height × 4 mm base diameter) were press-fit into distal femoral condyle defects in New Zealand White rabbits and assessed after 5 and 10 weeks. Bone apposition and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase activity around cements were assessed. All implants were well tolerated, but bone apposition was higher on calcium phosphate bone cements than on poly(methyl methacrylate) cement. Incorporation of collagen showed no evidence of inflammatory or immune reactions. Presence of positive tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase staining within cracks formed in calcium phosphate bone cements suggested active osteoclasts were present within the implants and were actively remodelling within the cements. Bone growth was also observed within these cracks. These findings confirm the biological advantages of calcium phosphate bone cements over poly(methyl methacrylate) and, coupled with previous work on enhancement of mechanical properties through collagen incorporation, suggest collagen-calcium phosphate bone cement composite may offer an alternative to calcium phosphate bone cements in applications where low setting times and higher mechanical stability are important. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 2 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 10 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 15% |
| Materials Science | 5 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,591,938
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#79
of 1,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,244
of 308,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,406 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them