Search

Calcium phosphate cements (CPCs) should ideally have mechanical properties similar to those of the bone tissue the material is used to replace or repair. Usually, the compressive strength of the CPCs is reported and, more rarely, the elastic modulus. Conversely, scarce or no data are available on Poisson's ratio and strain-to-crack-initiation. This is unfortunate, as data on the elastic response is key to, e.g., numerical model accuracy. In this study, the compressive behaviour of brushite, monetite and apatite cements was fully characterised. Measurement of the surface strains was done using a digital image correlation (DIC) technique, and compared to results obtained with the commonly used built-in displacement measurement of the materials testers. The collected data showed that the use of fixed compression platens, as opposed to spherically seated ones, may in some cases underestimate the compressive strength by up to 40%. Also, the built-in measurements may underestimate the elastic modulus by up to 62% as compared to DIC measurements. Using DIC, the brushite cement was found to be much stiffer (24.3 ± 2.3 GPa) than the apatite (13.5 ± 1.6 GPa) and monetite (7.1 ± 1.0 GPa) cements, and elastic moduli were inversely related to the porosity of the materials. Poisson's ratio was determined to be 0.26 ± 0.02 for brushite, 0.21 ± 0.02 for apatite and 0.20 ± 0.03 for monetite. All investigated CPCs showed low strain-to-crack-initiation (0.17–0.19%). In summary, the elastic modulus of CPCs is substantially higher than previously reported and it is concluded that an accurate procedure is a prerequisite in order to properly compare the mechanical properties of different CPC formulations. It is recommended to use spherically seated platens and measuring the strain at a relevant resolution and on the specimen surface., Peer Reviewed, Preprint

© 2016 The Authors. Calcium phosphate cements (CPCs) are widely used in bone repair. Currently there are two main types of CPCs, brushite and apatite. The aim of this project was to evaluate the mechanical properties of particularly promising experimental brushite and apatite formulations in comparison to commercially available brushite- and apatite-based cements (chronOS™ Inject and Norian® SRS®, respectively), and in particular evaluate the diametral tensile strength and biaxial flexural strength of these cements in both wet and dry conditions for the first time. The cements' porosity and their compressive, diametral tensile and biaxial flexural strength were tested in wet (or moist) and dry conditions. The surface morphology was characterized by scanning electron microscopy. Phase composition was assessed with X-ray diffraction. It was found that the novel experimental cements showed better mechanical properties than the commercially available cements, in all loading scenarios. The highest compressive strength (57.2±6.5 MPa before drying and 69.5±6.0 MPa after drying) was found for the experimental brushite cement. This cement also showed the highest wet diametral tensile strength (10.0±0.8 MPa) and wet biaxial flexural strength (30.7±1.8 MPa). It was also the cement that presented the lowest porosity (approx. 12%). The influence of water content was found to depend on cement type, with some cements showing higher mechanical properties after drying and some no difference after drying., Peer Reviewed, Postprint (published version)

Bone loss and fractures may call for the use of bone substituting materials, such as calcium phosphate cements (CPCs). CPCs can be degradable, and, to determine their limitations in terms of applications, their mechanical as well as chemical properties need to be evaluated over longer periods of time, under physiological conditions. However, there is lack of data on how the in vitro degradation affects high-strength brushite CPCs over longer periods of time, that is, longer than it takes for a bone fracture to heal. This study aimed at evaluating the long-term in vitro degradation properties of a high-strength brushite CPC in three different solutions: water, phosphate buffered saline, and a serum solution. Microcomputed tomography was used to evaluate the degradation nondestructively, complemented with gravimetric analysis. The compressive strength, chemical composition, and microstructure were also evaluated. Major changes from 10 weeks onwards were seen, in terms of formation of a porous outer layer of octacalcium phosphate on the specimens with a concomitant change in phase composition, increased porosity, decrease in object volume, and mechanical properties. This study illustrates the importance of long-term evaluation of similar cement compositions to be able to predict the material’s physical changes over a relevant time frame.

The porosity of a calcium phosphate cement is a key parameter as it affects several important properties of the cement. However, a successful, non-destructive porosity measurement method that does not include drying has not yet been reported for calcium phosphate cements. The aim of this study was to evaluate isopropanol solvent exchange as such a method. Two different types of calcium phosphate cements were used, one basic (hydroxyapatite) and one acidic (brushite). The cements were allowed to set in an aqueous environment and then immersed in isopropanol and stored under three different conditions: at room temperature, at room temperature under vacuum (300¿mbar) or at 37¿. The specimen mass was monitored regularly. Solvent exchange took much longer time to reach steady state in hydroxyapatite cements compared to brushite cements, 350 and 18¿h, respectively. Furthermore, the immersion affected the quasi-static compressive strength of the hydroxyapatite cements. However, the strength and phase composition of the brushite cements were not affected by isopropanol immersion, suggesting that isopropanol solvent exchange can be used for brushite calcium phosphate cements. The main advantages with this method are that it is non-destructive, fast, easy and the porosity can be evaluated while the cements remain wet, allowing for further analysis on the same specimen, Peer Reviewed, Postprint (author's final draft)