• Sophie Verrier, Lisa Hughes, Antoine Alves, Marianna Peroglio, Mauro Alini, and Andreas Boger.
• AO Research Institute, Clavadelerstrasse 8, 7270, Davos Platz, Switzerland. sophie.verrier@aofoundation.org
• Eur Spine J. 2012 Aug 1;21 Suppl 6:S800-9.

IntroductionPolymethylmethacrylate bone cements have proven performance in arthroplasty and represent a common bone filler, e.g. in vertebroplasty. However, acrylic cements are still subject to controversy concerning their exothermic reaction and osteo-integration potential. Therefore, we submitted a highly filled acrylic cement to a systematic investigation on the cell-material and tissue-implant response in vitro and in vivo.Materials And MethodsCured Vertecem V+ Cements were characterized by electron microscopy. Human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell morphology, growth and differentiation on the cured cement were followed for 28 days in vitro. The uncured cement was injected in an ovine cancellous bone defect and analysed 4 and 26 weeks post-implantation.ResultsThe rough surface of the cement allowed for good stem cells adhesion in vitro. Up-regulation of alkaline phosphatase was detected after 8 days of incubation. No adverse local effects were observed macroscopically and microscopically following 4 and 26 weeks of implantation of the cement into drill-hole defects in ovine distal femoral epiphysis. Direct bone apposition onto the implant surface was observed resulting in extended signs of osteo-integration over time (35.2 ± 24.2% and 88.8 ± 8.8% at week 4 and 26, respectively).ConclusionContrary to the established opinion concerning bony tissue response to implanted acrylic bone cements, we observed an early cell-implant in vitro interaction leading to cell growth and differentiation and significant signs of osteo-integration for this acrylic cement using standardized methods. Few outlined limitations, such as the use of low cement volumes, have to be considered in the interpretation of the study results.

18 keywords...

hide…