| Title |
Osteoinduction and -conduction through absorbable bone substitute materials based on calcium sulfate: in vivo biological behavior in a rabbit model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-017-6017-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. Pförringer, N. Harrasser, H. Mühlhofer, M. Kiokekli, A. Stemberger, M. van Griensven, M. Lucke, R. Burgkart, A. Obermeier |
| Abstract |
Calcium sulfate (CS) can be used as an antibiotically impregnated bone substitute in a variety of clinical constellations. Antibiotically loaded bone substitutes find specific application in orthopedic and trauma surgery to prevent or treat bone infections especially in relation to open bone defects. However, its use as a structural bone graft reveals some concerns due to its fast biodegradation. The addition of calcium carbonate and tripalmitin makes CS formulations more resistant to resorption leaving bone time to form during a prolonged degradation process. The aim of the present study was the evaluation of biocompatibility and degradation properties of newly formulated antibiotically impregnated CS preparations. Three different types of CS bone substitute beads were implanted into the tibial metaphysis of rabbits (CS dihydrate with tripalmitin, containing gentamicin (Group A) or vancomycin (Group B); Group C: tobramycin-loaded CS hemihydrate). Examinations were performed by means of x-ray, micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and histology after 4, 6, 8 and 12 weeks. Regarding biocompatibility of the formulations, no adverse reactions were observed. Histology showed formation of vital bone cells attached directly to the implanted materials, while no cytotoxic effect in the surrounding of the beads was detected. All CS preparations showed osteogenesis associated to implanted material. Osteoblasts attached directly to the implant surface and revealed osteoid production, osteocytes were found in newly mineralized bone. Group C implants (Osteoset®) were subject to quick degradation within 4 weeks, after 6-8 weeks there were only minor remnants with little osteogenesis demonstrated by histological investigations. Group A implants (Herafill®-G) revealed similar degradation within atleast 12 weeks. In contrast, group B implants (CaSO4-V) were still detectable after 12 weeks with the presence of implant-associated osteogenesis atlatest follow-up. In all of these preparations, giant cells were found during implant degradation on surface and inside of resorption lacunae. None of the analyzed CS preparations triggered contact activation. All implants demonstrated excellent biocompatibility, with implants of Group A and B showing excellent features as osteoconductive and -inductive scaffolds able to improve mechanical stability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 33% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 June 2019.
All research outputs
#14,387,654
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#988
of 1,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,391
of 443,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,406 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 443,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.