NAF IN PMMA CEMENT IMPROVES REPARATIVE BONE RESPONSE

Abstract

Introduction. Radio-opaque additives for Orthopaedic Bone Cement, like BaSO4 or ZrO2, are now routinely used because of the valuable help in identifying cement location around an implant on the x-ray films. A new bone cement formulation was devised with the aim to improve the reparative response of bone tissue surrounding a cemented implant, soon after the operation: a 6% NaF 6% BaSO4 preparation “Fluoride Bone Cement©” (Tecres, I) was tested in-vivo versus a 9% BaSO4 preparation “CemexRX©” (Tecres, I). NaF stimulating action towards bone repair is prompt by the formation of fluoroapatite and the stimulation of osteoblast differentiation. NaF-added cement acts like a “drug-release device” for fluoride ions.

Materials & Methods. Eighteen outbred male New Zealand White rabbits of approximately 3,2 kg of weight have been used. They were divided into six groups of three units. Gropus A1, A2, A3 were implanted with cement without fluoride “CemexRX©” while groups B1, B2, B3 had “Fluoride Bone Cement©”. Retrieval occurred after 17 days (A1, B1); 33 days (A2, B2); 60 days (A3, B3). The surgical implantation site selected was the distal femural canal (meta-epiphyseal region). The canal in the right femur was filled with cement while the canal in the left femur was used as a surgical control (“sham” operation). Sections of 100 micron of thickness were taken by a rotating diamond-saw microtome (Leitz Wetzlar) and analyzed by polarized light and ultra-violet fluorescence microscopy (Nikon Miscroscope). One hundred and twenty sections were obtained for each femur.

Results. Calcein green fluorescent labelling showed that no real endosteal osteogenic response was evidenced the day after surgery, for both cement preparations, while periosteal response was normal. This was the consequence of the biological insult of the intramedullary polymerization of the cement. Xylenol orange showed that all the contra-lateral femurs (“sham”) had a normal endosteal and periosteal osteogenesis at all times. Both cement preparations continued to show a limited end-osteal response after 17 days and a slow recovery after 33 days, with better pictures in favour of NaF cement. After 60 days recovery in endosteal osteogenesis was adequate but, again, NaF cement showed the highst number of good pictures.

Conclusions. Adding NaF promoted the better recovery in endosteal osteogenic response observed in comparison with NaF-free cement. To differentiate the biological response it was essential to compare a high number of sections (120) in comparable locations, in a contralateral “sham” operated control in the very same animal. This procedure, costly and demanding, seems to be a right methodological approach.