No biological advantage with a low temperature curing versus a conventional bone cement: an experimental, mechanical...

Both tibial marrow cavities of 12 rabbits were evacuated and filled with curing bone cement. In one of the tibias conventional curing bone cement (Simplex P) was injected, while the other tibia of the same animal was filled with a low temperature curing bone cement (Boneloc). Three titanium implants were inserted along the proximal metaphysis of each tibia. Eight weeks after insertion the most distal implant in each tibia was removed while recording the removal torque. The implant was then once again screwed home into its bone bed. The animals were sacrificed 16 weeks after implant insertion. The previously removed implant and another implant in each tibia were then both removed while recording the removal torque. The third implant in each tibia was cut out en bloc with surrounding tissue and processed for ground section. We found no statistical differences in the mechanical or the histomorphometric evaluation of implant integration between the two cements, indicating that the low temperature curing bone cement does not result in a significantly different bone response from that of a conventional acrylic cement.