Transforming growth factor‐β1 incorporation in a calcium phosphate bone cement: Material properties and release characteristics

Abstract

The bone regenerative properties of calcium phosphate cements (CPCs) may be improved by the addition of growth factors, such as recombinant human transforming growth factor-β1 (rhTGF-β1). Previously, we showed that rhTGF-β1 in CPC stimulated the differentiation of preosteoblastic cells from adult rat long bones. The intermixing of rhTGF-β1 in CPC, which was subsequently applied to rat calvarial defects, enhanced bone growth around the cement and increased the degradation of the cement. However, it is unknown whether the addition of rhTGF-β1 changes the material properties of CPC and what the characteristics of the release of rhTGF-β1 from CPC are. Therefore, we determined in this study the release of rhTGF-β1, in vitro, from the cement pellets as implanted in the rat calvariae. The possible intervening effects of rhTGF-β1 intermixing on the clinical compliance of CPC were studied through an assessment of its compressive strength and setting time, as well as its crystallinity, calcium-to-phosphorus ratio, porosity, and microscopic structure. We prepared CPC by mixing calcium phosphate powder (58% α-tricalcium phosphate, 25% anhydrous dicalcium phosphate, 8.5% calcium carbonate, and 8.5% hydroxyapatite) with a liquid (3 g/mL). The liquid for standard CPC consisted of water with 4% disodium hydrogen phosphate, whereas the liquid for modified CPC was mixed with an equal amount of 4 mM hydrochloride with 0.2% bovine serum albumin. The hydrochloride liquid contained rhTGF-β1 in different concentrations for the release experiments. Most of the rhTGF-β1 incorporated in the cement pellets was released within the first 48 h. For all concentrations of intermixed rhTGF-β1 (100 ng to 2.5 mg/g of CPC), approximately 0.5% was released in the first 4 h, increasing to 1.0% after 48 h. Further release was only about 0.1% from 2 days to 8 weeks. CPC modification slightly increased the initial setting time at 20°C from 2.6 to 5 min but had no effect on the final setting time of CPC at 20°C or the initial and final setting times at 37°C. The compressive strength was increased from 18 MPa in the standard CPC to 28 MPa in the modified CPC only 4 h after mixing. The compressive strength diminished in the modified CPC between 24 h and 8 weeks from 55 to 25 MPa. No other significant change was found with the CPC modification for rhTGF-β1. X-ray diffraction revealed that standard and modified CPCs changed similarly from the original components, α-tricalcium phosphate and anhydrous dicalcium phosphate, into an apatite cement. The calcium-to-phosphorus ratio, as determined with an electron microprobe, did not differ for standard CPC and modified CPC. Standard and modified CPCs became dense and homogeneous structures after 24 h, but the modified CPC contained more crystal plaques than the standard CPC, as observed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SEM and back- scattered electron images revealed that after 8 weeks the cements showed equally and uniformly dense structures with microscopic pores (<1 μm). Both CPCs showed fewer crystal plaques at 8 weeks than at 24 h. This study shows that CPC is not severely changed by its modification for rhTGF-β1. The prolonged setting time of modified cement may affect the clinical handling but is still within acceptable limits. The compressive strength for both standard and modified cements was within the range of thin trabecular bone; therefore, both CPCs can withstand equal mechanical loading. The faster diminishing compressive strength of modified cement from 24 h to 8 weeks likely results in early breakdown and so might be favorable for bone regeneration. Together with the beneficial effects on bone regeneration from the addition of rhTGF-β1 to CPC, as shown in our previous studies, we conclude that the envisaged applications for CPC in bone defects are upgraded by the intermixing of rhTGF-β1. Therefore, the combination of CPC and rhTGF-β1 forms a promising synthetic bone graft. © 2001 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 59: 265–272, 2002