Experimental study on the repair of rabbit femoral condyle critical-sized bone defect using polyphosphoester-amino acid copolymer-composite nanohydroxyapatite filling material
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Experimental study on the repair of rabbit femoral condyle critical-sized bone defect using polyphosphoester-amino acid copolymer-composite nanohydroxyapatite filling material
To engineer a porous nanohydroxyapatite/polyphosphoester-amino acid composite bone graft substitute (nHA/PPE-AA) in granular form and evaluate its reparative efficacy and in vivo safety in a rabbit femoral condyle critical-sized defect (CSD) model. Porous nHA/PPE-AA granules were fabricated using polyphosphoester-amino acid copolymer (PPE-AA) as the organic matrix and nanohydroxyapatite (nHA) as the inorganic phase. Material characteristics were examined by scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. A rabbit femoral condyle CSD model (10 × 10 × 10 mm3) was randomly assigned to nHA/PPE-AA, positive control (calcium sulfate), and blank groups. Bone repair was assessed by gross inspection, serum bone turnover markers, digital radiography (G/N ratio), micro-computed tomography, sequential fluorochrome labeling, histology, interfacial SEM, and BMP-2 mRNA expression. Safety was evaluated by ESR, WBC, CRP, and histology of major organs and peri-implant tissues. The nHA/PPE-AA composite exhibited an interconnected porous granular structure (35%–55% porosity, 3–7 MPa compressive strength). XRD and FTIR confirmed stable coexistence of nHA and PPE-AA. Gross and imaging analyses demonstrated progressive defect repair, with higher G/N ratios and more trabecular regeneration in the nHA/PPE-AA group. Fluorochrome labeling and histomorphometry indicated accelerated mineralization and shorter lag time. Histology and SEM confirmed mature neobone formation and superior bone-material integration. RT-qPCR showed sustained BMP-2 upregulation from 1 to 3 months, peaking at 3 months. Safety assessments revealed only transient changes in ESR, WBC, and CRP, with no significant organ pathology. Porous nHA/PPE-AA granules provide interconnected porous structure, moderate mechanical support, osteogenic activity, and good in vivo biocompatibility. In a rabbit femoral condyle CSD model, they promoted new bone formation, accelerated mineralization, and improved bone-material interface, highlighting their potential as a translationally relevant bone void filler.
ŁuczakJWPalusińskaMMatakD, et al.The future of bone repair: emerging technologies and biomaterials in bone regeneration. Int J Mol Sci2024; 25: 12766. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms252312766
HofmannGHSarsourRvan DeursenW, et al.Immune rejection of orthopedic tissue allograft scoping review: are we missing a cause of graft/procedural failure? Current concepts. J ISAKOS2025; 15: 101002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2025.101002
7.
SchwartzNGHernandez-RomieuACAnnambhotlaP, et al.Nationwide tuberculosis outbreak in the USA linked to a bone graft product: an outbreak report. Lancet Infect Dis2022; 22: 1617–1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00425-X
8.
BaseriNMeysamieACampanileF, et al.Bacterial contamination of bone allografts in the tissue banks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect2022; 123: 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.10.020
9.
BrochuBMSturmSRKawase De Queiroz GoncalvesJA, et al.Advances in bioceramics for bone regeneration: a narrative review. Biomimetics (Basel), 2024.
SathiyaKGanesamoorthiSMohanS, et al.Natural polymers-based surface engineering of bone scaffolds - a review. Int J Biol Macromol2024; 282: 136840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.136840
12.
TajvarSHadjizadehASamandariSS. Scaffold degradation in bone tissue engineering: an overview. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad2023; 180: 105599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2023.105599
13.
MadukaCVMakelaAVTundoA, et al.Regulating the proinflammatory response to composite biomaterials by targeting immunometabolism. Bioact Mater2024; 40: 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.05.046
14.
ChmielewskaADeanD. The role of stiffness-matching in avoiding stress shielding-induced bone loss and stress concentration-induced skeletal reconstruction device failure. Acta Biomater2024; 173: 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2023.11.011
15.
BandyopadhyayAMitraIGoodmanSB, et al.Improving biocompatibility for next generation of metallic implants. Prog Mater Sci2023; 133: 101053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.101053
16.
RadhaGManjubaashiniNBalakumarS. Nano-hydroxyapatite/natural polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: a brief review of recent trend. In Vitro Model2023; 2: 125–151.
17.
FendiFAbdullahBSuryaniS, et al.Development and application of hydroxyapatite-based scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration: a systematic literature review. Bone2024; 183: 117075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2024.117075
18.
TrzaskowskaMVivcharenkoVBenkoA, et al.Biocompatible nanocomposite hydroxyapatite-based granules with increased specific surface area and bioresorbability for bone regenerative medicine applications. Sci Rep2024; 14: 28137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79822-0
19.
Suba SriMUshaR. An insightful overview on osteogenic potential of nano hydroxyapatite for bone regeneration. Cell Tissue Bank2025; 26: 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-025-10163-6
20.
AbereDVOjoSAOyatogunGM, et al.Mechanical and morphological characterization of nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) for bone regeneration: a mini review. Biomed Eng Adv2022; 4: 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bea.2022.100056
RheinbergerTDeukerMWurmFR. The microstructure of polyphosphoesters controls polymer hydrolysis kinetics from minutes to years. Eur Polym J2023; 190: 111999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.111999
YuanHJiangMFangH, et al.Recent advances in poly(amino acids), polypeptides, and their derivatives in drug delivery. Nanoscale2025; 17: 3549–3584. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4nr04481a
25.
BodduSHSBhagavPKarlaPK, et al.Polyamide/Poly(Amino acid) polymers for drug delivery. J Funct Biomater2021; 12: 58.
26.
JiYSongWXuL, et al.A review on electrospun poly(amino acid) nanofibers and their applications of hemostasis and wound healing. Biomolecules2022; 12: 794.
27.
NguyenTTHuCCSakthivelR, et al.Preparation of gamma poly-glutamic acid/hydroxyapatite/collagen composite as the 3D-printing scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Biomater Res2022; 26: 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-022-00265-7
28.
HanPWangLLiH, et al.The new cocrystal of molnupiravir-caprolactam discovered by melt crystallization with improved tableting properties. Int J Pharm2025; 677: 125661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2025.125661
29.
XuHDengWShiL, et al.The role of the molecular encapsulation effect in stabilizing hydrogen-bond-rich gel-state lithium metal batteries. Angew Chem Int Ed2024; 63: e202400032. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202400032
TaoYTanXZhangT. Enhancing biocompatibility and degradation control of biodegradable polymers through amino acid grafting: a study on 4arm-PLGA-Amino acid copolymers. Appl Mater Today2024; 41: 102497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2024.102497
32.
ChenJXianGXiaoZ, et al.Biomineralization-inspired scaffolds using citrate-based polymers to stabilize amorphous calcium phosphate promote osteogenesis and angiogenesis for bone defect repair. Bioact Mater2026; 56: 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2025.10.016
33.
SadekAAAbd-ElkareemMAbdelhamidHN, et al.Enhancement of critical-sized bone defect regeneration using UiO-66 nanomaterial in rabbit femurs. BMC Vet Res2022; 18: 260. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03347-9
34.
SebastianiSBuccinoFQinZ, et al.Structural influences on bone tissue engineering: a review and perspective. Matter2025; 8: 102252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2025.102252
35.
MukashevaFAdilovaLDyussenbinovA, et al.Optimizing scaffold pore size for tissue engineering: insights across various tissue types. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2024; 12: 1444986. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1444986
36.
DamiriFFatimiAMagdalena MusucA, et al.Nano-hydroxyapatite (nHAp) scaffolds for bone regeneration: preparation, characterization and biological applications. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol2024; 95: 105601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jddst.2024.105601
37.
MoXZhangDLiuK, et al.Nano-Hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds loaded with bioactive factors and drugs for bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci2023; 24: 1291.
38.
RodovalhoAJRLBarbosaWTVieiraJL, et al.Influence of size and crystallinity of nanohydroxyapatite (nHA) particles on the properties of polylactic acid/nHA nanocomposite scaffolds produced by 3D printing. J Mater Res Technol2024; 30: 3101–3111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.04.048
39.
Bordukalo-NiksicTKufnerVVukicevicS. The role of BMPs in the regulation of osteoclasts resorption and bone remodeling: from experimental models to clinical applications. Front Immunol2022; 13: 869422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.869422
40.
WangMXuCZhengY, et al.In vivo validation of osteoinductivity and biocompatibility of BMP-2 enriched calcium phosphate cement alongside retrospective description of its clinical adverse events. Int J Implant Dent2024; 10: 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-024-00567-6
41.
StraubJSewingAWalterN, et al.Calcium sulfate bone substitutes in clinical use: history, material properties, application, and outlook for the future. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2025; 113: e35555. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.35555
42.
LunDXLiSYLiNN, et al.Limitations and modifications in the clinical application of calcium sulfate. Front Surg2024; 11: 1278421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1278421
43.
KangMLeeSSeoJP, et al.Cell-permeable bone morphogenetic protein 2 facilitates bone regeneration by promoting osteogenesis. Mater Today Bio2024; 25: 100983.
