Table 1.
Compositions of the bone cements prepared.a
Table 2.
Values of curing parameters of different cements (n = 6).
Figure 1.
SEM images of the PSB bone cement fresh prepared.
The glass and CS particles were uniformly distributed in the polymeric matrix for dry cement samples.
Figure 2.
The degradation of mechanical properties of the PMMA and PSB bone cement.
A significantly lower compressive strength (P<0.05) was observed for the PSB bone cement compared to the PMMA bone cement at each degradation time.
Figure 3.
SEM photographs of the surface of PSB bone cement before and after soaking in SBF for different periods.
(a) Samples before soaked in SBF. (b) Samples after soaking in SBF for 3 days. (c) Samples after soaking in SBF for 7 days. After 3 days, the surface changed considerably (as compared to the non-immersed specimens), but no deposits were visible even at high magnifications. Apatite crystals of needle-like morphology were observed on the surface of the cement sample soaked in SBF for 7 days.
Figure 4.
Cell adhesion and proliferation on disks of different bone cements.
(a) Confocal images of F-actin and nuclei stained MC3T3-E1 cells cultured for 3 h on cement surfaces. Scale bar represents 100µm (top row) and 20 µm (bottom row). (b) Normalized cell adhesion 3 h post-seeding on the PMMA and PSB bone cement compared to cell-seeded TCPS as positive (+) control. Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).*, p<0.05 compared to TCPS and the PSB bone cement. (c) The number of MC3T3-E1 cells 1, 4, 7 days post-seeding on disks of the PMMA and PSB bone cement compared to cell-seeded TCPS as positive (+) control. Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).*, P<0.05 between two marked samples.
Figure 5.
disks of different bone cements. ALP activities of MC3T3-E1 cells cultured on disks of the PMMA and PSB bone cement for 7 and 14 days, compared to cell-seeded TCPS as positive (+) control. Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).*, P<0.05 between two marked samples.
Figure 6.
Tridimensional reconstruction using micro-CT analysis.
(a) Residual material of the PMMA and PSB bone cement and (b) cross section images of rabbit femur after implantation for different periods.
Figure 7.
Quantitative analysis of new bone formation from micro-CT images.
Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5).*, P<0.05 between two marked samples.
Figure 8.
Histological morphologies of the interface between bone tissue and cement.
(a, b) The PMMA and (c, d) PSB bone cement after implantation for 6 and 12 weeks, respectively. M: materials, B: bone, F: fibrous tissue, Arrow: bone ingrowth into macropores formed by the degradation of bone cement, bars = 100 µm.
Figure 9.
Results of push-out strength after implantation in rabbit femur.
Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (n = 6).*, P<0.05 between two marked samples.