| Literature DB >> 28773933 |
Anna Turyanskaya1, Mirjam Rauwolf2, Tilman A Grünewald3, Martin Meischel4, Stefanie Stanzl-Tschegg5, Jörg F Löffler6, Peter Wobrauschek7, Annelie M Weinberg8, Helga C Lichtenegger9, Christina Streli10.
Abstract
This study investigated the distribution of the elemental constituents of Mg-based implants at various stages of the degradation process in surrounding bone tissue, with a focus on magnesium (Mg), as the main component of the alloy, and yttrium (Y), due to its potential adverse health effects. The measurements were performed on the implant-bearing thin sections of rat bone in a time series of implant degradation between one and 18 months. Micro X-ray fluorescence analysis (μXRF) with a special spectrometer meeting the requirements for the measurements of low-Z elements was used. It was found that the migration and accumulation behaviour of implant degradation products is element-specific. A sharp decrease in Mg was observed in the immediate vicinity of the interface and no specific accumulation or aggregation of Mg in the adjacent bone tissue was detected. By contrast, Y was found to migrate further into the bone over time and to remain in the tissue even after the complete degradation of the implant. Although the nature of Y accumulations must still be clarified, its potential health impact should be considered.Entities:
Keywords: biodegradable Mg implants; bone; elemental imaging; magnesium; yttrium; µXRF
Year: 2016 PMID: 28773933 PMCID: PMC5456597 DOI: 10.3390/ma9100811
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Exemplary spectrum from implant-bone interface (excitation with a Rh-anode X-ray tube), measuring time: 200 s.
Figure 2One-month sample (a) elemental maps, 9 × 81 pixels—corresponding to 0.4 mm × 4 mm; (b) micrograph (obtained with a Wild M8 stereo microscope (Wild Heerbrugg, Heerbrugg, Switzerland)), the black rectangle outlines the area, where the scanning was done; and (c) line scan (line 5); “Imp” denotes the position of the implant, “Bone” denotes the adjacent bone tissue.
Figure 3Three-month sample (a) elemental maps, 11 × 72 pixels—corresponding to 0.5 mm × 3.55 mm; (b) micrograph denoting the scanning area; and (c) line scan (line 6).
Figure 4Six-month sample (a) elemental maps, 107 × 12 pixels—corresponding to 5.3 mm × 0.55 mm; (b) micrograph showing the scanning area; and (c) line scan (line 6).
Figure 5Nine-month sample (a) elemental maps, 76 × 8 pixels—corresponding to 3.75 mm × 0.35 mm; (b) micrograph showing the scanning area; and (c) line scan (line 5), A—accumulation of Y.
Figure 6Twelve-month sample (a) elemental maps, 11 × 81 pixels—corresponding to 0.5 × 4 mm; (b) micrograph showing the scanning area; and (c) line scan (line 6).
Figure 7Eighteen-month sample (a) elemental maps, 81 × 16 pixels—corresponding to 4 mm × 0.75 mm; (b) micrograph showing the scanning area; and (c) line scan (line 8).
Estimation of Yttrium migration into the bone.
| Duration of Stay in Bone | Distance from Interface |
|---|---|
| 1 month | 950 µm |
| 3 months | 1400 µm |
| 12 months | 1700 µm |