| Literature DB >> 24748789 |
Dennis Mathew1, Garima Bhardwaj2, Qi Wang3, Linlin Sun3, Batur Ercan3, Manisavagam Geetha1, Thomas J Webster4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plasma-spray deposition of hydroxyapatite on titanium (Ti) has proven to be a suboptimal solution to improve orthopedic-implant success rates, as demonstrated by the increasing number of orthopedic revision surgeries due to infection, implant loosening, and a myriad of other reasons. This could be in part due to the high heat involved during plasma-spray deposition, which significantly increases hydroxyapatite crystal growth into the nonbiologically inspired micron regime. There has been a push to create nanotopographies on implant surfaces to mimic the physiological nanostructure of native bone and, thus, improve osteoblast (bone-forming cell) functions and inhibit bacteria functions. Among the several techniques that have been adopted to develop nanocoatings, electrophoretic deposition (EPD) is an attractive, versatile, and effective material-processing technique.Entities:
Keywords: bacteria; electrophoretic deposition; inhibition; nanotechnology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24748789 PMCID: PMC3986289 DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S55733
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Nanomedicine ISSN: 1176-9114
Conditions for plasma-spray deposition of hydroxyapatite on titanium
| Condition | Parameter |
|---|---|
| Primary spray gas, Ar | 40 SLPM |
| Secondary spray gas, H2 | 10 SLPM |
| Carrier gas, Ar | 2 SLPM |
| Powder-flow rate | 25 g/min |
| Plasma-jet type | F4-MB |
| Injector size, diameter | 1.8 mm |
| Powder-feeding distance | 8 mm |
| Spray current | 650 A |
| Spray voltage | 58 V |
| Spray distance | 100 mm |
Abbreviation: SLPM, standard liters per minute.
Figure 1Scanning electron microscopy images of the samples of interest to the present study. It is clear that the electrophoretic-deposited (EPD) hydroxyapatite on titanium samples had the greatest degree of nanoscale surface roughness. (A–D) Plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite on titanium. (E–H) EPD hydroxyapatite on titanium. (I) Plain titanium.
Figure 2Contact angles on the samples of interest to the present study: (A) contact angle on plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite on titanium =90°; (B) contact angle on electrophoretic-deposited (EPD) hydroxyapatite on titanium = complete wetting; (C) contact angle on plain titanium =6°.
Figure 3Increased osteoblast density on nanostructured electrophoretic-deposited hydroxyapatite on titanium (Ti) after 5 days of culture.
Notes: Data are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean; N=3; *P,0.01 compared with Ti (control) at the same time period; **P<0.01 compared with plasma-sprayed-deposited hydroxyapatite on Ti at the same period; ***P<0.01 compared with the previous time period on the same substrate. There was six and three times more osteoblast density on electrophoretic-deposited hydroxyapatite on Ti compared with Ti (control) and plasma-spray-deposited hydroxyapatite on Ti, respectively.
Figure 4Significantly decreased bacteria density on nanostructured electrophoretic-deposited hydroxyapatite on titanium (Ti) after 18 hours of culture.
Notes: Data are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean; N=3; *P<0.01 compared with Ti (control); **P<0.01 compared with plasma-sprayed-deposited hydroxyapatite on Ti. There was 2.9 and 31.7 times less bacteria on electrophoretic-deposited hydroxyapatite on Ti compared with Ti (control) and plasma-spray-deposited hydroxyapatite on Ti, respectively.