Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 11, Issue 5 | Pages 260 - 269
3 May 2022
Staats K Sosa BR Kuyl E Niu Y Suhardi V Turajane K Windhager R Greenblatt MB Ivashkiv L Bostrom MPG Yang X

Aims. To develop an early implant instability murine model and explore the use of intermittent parathyroid hormone (iPTH) treatment for initially unstable implants. Methods. 3D-printed titanium implants were inserted into an oversized drill-hole in the tibiae of C57Bl/6 mice (n = 54). After implantation, the mice were randomly divided into three treatment groups (phosphate buffered saline (PBS)-control, iPTH, and delayed iPTH). Radiological analysis, micro-CT (µCT), and biomechanical pull-out testing were performed to assess implant loosening, bone formation, and osseointegration. Peri-implant tissue formation and cellular composition were evaluated by histology. Results. iPTH reduced radiological signs of loosening and led to an increase in peri-implant bone formation over the course of four weeks (timepoints: one week, two weeks, and four weeks). Observational histological analysis shows that iPTH prohibits the progression of fibrosis. Delaying iPTH treatment until after onset of peri-implant fibrosis still resulted in enhanced osseointegration and implant stability. Despite initial instability, iPTH increased the mean pull-out strength of the implant from 8.41 N (SD 8.15) in the PBS-control group to 21.49 N (SD 10.45) and 23.68 N (SD 8.99) in the immediate and delayed iPTH groups, respectively. Immediate and delayed iPTH increased mean peri-implant bone volume fraction (BV/TV) to 0.46 (SD 0.07) and 0.34 (SD 0.10), respectively, compared to PBS-control mean BV/TV of 0.23 (SD 0.03) (PBS-control vs immediate iPTH, p < 0.001; PBS-control vs delayed iPTH, p = 0.048; immediate iPTH vs delayed iPTH, p = 0.111). Conclusion. iPTH treatment mediated successful osseointegration and increased bone mechanical strength, despite initial implant instability. Clinically, this suggests that initially unstable implants may be osseointegrated with iPTH treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(5):260–269


Aims. This study examined whether systemic administration of melatonin would have different effects on osseointegration in ovariectomized (OVX) rats, depending on whether this was administered during the day or night. Methods. In this study, a titanium rod was implanted in the medullary cavity of one femoral metaphysis in OVX rats, and then the rats were randomly divided into four groups: Sham group (Sham, n = 10), OVX rat group (OVX, n = 10), melatonin day treatment group (OVX + MD, n = 10), and melatonin night treatment group (OVX + MN, n = 10). The OVX + MD and OVX + MN rats were treated with 30 mg/kg/day melatonin at 9 am and 9 pm, respectively, for 12 weeks. At the end of the research, the rats were killed to obtain bilateral femora and blood samples for evaluation. Results. Micro-CT and histological evaluation showed that the bone microscopic parameters of femoral metaphysis trabecular bone and bone tissue around the titanium rod in the OVX + MD group demonstrated higher bone mineral density, bone volume fraction, trabecular number, connective density, trabecular thickness, and lower trabecular speculation (p = 0.004) than the OVX + MN group. Moreover, the biomechanical parameters of the OVX + MD group showed higher pull-out test and three-point bending test values, including fixation strength, interface stiffness, energy to failure, energy at break, ultimate load, and elastic modulus (p = 0.012) than the OVX + MN group. In addition, the bone metabolism index and oxidative stress indicators of the OVX + MD group show lower values of Type I collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide, procollagen type 1 N propeptide, and malondialdehyde (p = 0.013), and higher values of TAC and SOD (p = 0.002) compared with the OVX + MN group. Conclusion. The results of our study suggest that systemic administration with melatonin at 9 am may improve the initial osseointegration of titanium rods under osteoporotic conditions more effectively than administration at 9 pm. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(11):751–762


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 2 | Pages 187 - 195
1 Feb 2018
Ziebart J Fan S Schulze C Kämmerer PW Bader R Jonitz-Heincke A

Objectives. Enhanced micromotions between the implant and surrounding bone can impair osseointegration, resulting in fibrous encapsulation and aseptic loosening of the implant. Since the effect of micromotions on human bone cells is sparsely investigated, an in vitro system, which allows application of micromotions on bone cells and subsequent investigation of bone cell activity, was developed. Methods. Micromotions ranging from 25 µm to 100 µm were applied as sine or triangle signal with 1 Hz frequency to human osteoblasts seeded on collagen scaffolds. Micromotions were applied for six hours per day over three days. During the micromotions, a static pressure of 527 Pa was exerted on the cells by Ti6Al4V cylinders. Osteoblasts loaded with Ti6Al4V cylinders and unloaded osteoblasts without micromotions served as controls. Subsequently, cell viability, expression of the osteogenic markers collagen type I, alkaline phosphatase, and osteocalcin, as well as gene expression of osteoprotegerin, receptor activator of NF-κB ligand, matrix metalloproteinase-1, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1, were investigated. Results. Live and dead cell numbers were higher after 25 µm sine and 50 µm triangle micromotions compared with loaded controls. Collagen type I synthesis was downregulated in respective samples. The metabolic activity and osteocalcin expression level were higher in samples treated with 25 µm micromotions compared with the loaded controls. Furthermore, static loading and micromotions decreased the osteoprotegerin/receptor activator of NF-κB ligand ratio. Conclusion. Our system enables investigation of the behaviour of bone cells at the bone-implant interface under shear stress induced by micromotions. We could demonstrate that micromotions applied under static pressure conditions have a significant impact on the activity of osteoblasts seeded on collagen scaffolds. In future studies, higher mechanical stress will be applied and different implant surface structures will be considered. Cite this article: J. Ziebart, S. Fan, C. Schulze, P. W. Kämmerer, R. Bader, A. Jonitz-Heincke. Effects of interfacial micromotions on vitality and differentiation of human osteoblasts. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:187–195. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.72.BJR-2017-0228.R1


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 10 | Pages 548 - 560
1 Oct 2018
Qayoom I Raina DB Širka A Tarasevičius Š Tägil M Kumar A Lidgren L

During the last decades, several research groups have used bisphosphonates for local application to counteract secondary bone resorption after bone grafting, to improve implant fixation or to control bone resorption caused by bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). We focused on zoledronate (a bisphosphonate) due to its greater antiresorptive potential over other bisphosphonates. Recently, it has become obvious that the carrier is of importance to modulate the concentration and elution profile of the zoledronic acid locally. Incorporating one fifth of the recommended systemic dose of zoledronate with different apatite matrices and types of bone defects has been shown to enhance bone regeneration significantly in vivo. We expect the local delivery of zoledronate to overcome the limitations and side effects associated with systemic usage; however, we need to know more about the bioavailability and the biological effects. The local use of BMP-2 and zoledronate as a combination has a proven additional effect on bone regeneration. This review focuses primarily on the local use of zoledronate alone, or in combination with bone anabolic factors, in various preclinical models mimicking different orthopaedic conditions.

Cite this article: I. Qayoom, D. B. Raina, A. Širka, Š. Tarasevičius, M. Tägil, A. Kumar, L. Lidgren. Anabolic and antiresorptive actions of locally delivered bisphosphonates for bone repair: A review. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:548–560. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.710.BJR-2018-0015.R2.