Next-generation resorbable polymer scaffolds with surface-precipitated calcium phosphate coatings.

Next-generation synthetic bone graft therapies will most likely be composed of resorbable polymers in combination with bioactive components. In this article, we continue our exploration of E1001(1k), a tyrosine-derived polycarbonate, as an orthopedic implant material. Specifically, we use E1001(1k), which is degradable, nontoxic, and osteoconductive, to fabricate porous bone regeneration scaffolds that were enhanced by two different types of calcium phosphate (CP) coatings: in one case, pure dicalcium phosphate dihydrate was precipitated on the scaffold surface and throughout its porous structure (E1001(1k) + CP). In the other case, bone matrix minerals (BMM) such as zinc, manganese and fluoride were co-precipitated within the dicalcium phosphate dihydrate coating (E1001(1k) + BMM). These scaffold compositions were compared against each other and against ChronOS (Synthes USA, West Chester, PA, USA), a clinically used bone graft substitute (BGS), which served as the positive control in our experimental design. This BGS is composed of poly(lactide co-ε-caprolactone) and beta-tricalcium phosphate. We used the established rabbit calvaria critical-sized defect model to determine bone regeneration within the defect for each of the three scaffold compositions. New bone formation was determined after 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 weeks by micro-computerized tomography (μCT) and histology. The experimental tyrosine-derived polycarbonate, enhanced with dicalcium phosphate dihydrate, E1001(1k) + CP, supported significant bone formation within the defects and was superior to the same scaffold containing a mix of BMM, E1001(1k) + BMM. The comparison with the commercially available BGS was complicated by the large variability in bone formation observed for the laboratory preparations of E1001(1k) scaffolds. At all time points, there was a trend for E1001(1k) + CP to be superior to the commercial BGS. However, only at the 6-week time point did this trend reach statistical significance. Detailed analysis of the μCT data suggested an increase in bone formation from 2 through 12 weeks in implant sites treated with E1001(1k) + CP. At 2 and 4 weeks post-implantation, bone formation occurred at the interface where the E1001(1k) + CP scaffold was in contact with the bone borders of the implant site. Thereafter, during weeks 6, 8 and 12 bone formation progressed throughout the E1001(1k) + CP test implants. This trend was not observed with E1001(1k) + BMM scaffolds or the clinically used BGS. Our results suggest that E1001(1k) + CP should be tested further for osteoregenerative applications.