| Literature DB >> 28879972 |
Tim Andreas Huehnerschulte1, Nina Angrisani2, Dina Rittershaus3, Dirk Bormann4, Henning Windhagen5, Andrea Meyer-Lindenberg6.
Abstract
In magnesium alloys, the components used modify the alloy properties. For magnesium implants in contact with bone, rare earths alloys are commonly examined. These were shown to have a higher corrosion resistance than other alloys and a high mechanical strength, but their exact composition is hard to predict. Therefore a reduction of their content could be favorable. The alloys ZEK100 and AX30 have a reduced content or contain no rare earths at all. The aim of the study was to investigate their in vivo degradation and to assess the suitability of the in vivo µCT for the examination of their corrosion. Implants were inserted in rabbit tibiae. Clinical examinations, X-rays and in vivo µCT scans were done regularly. Afterwards implants were analyzed with REM, electron dispersive X-ray (EDX), weighing and mechanical testing. The in vivo µCT is of great advantage, because it allows a quantification of the corrosion rate and qualitative 3D assessment of the corrosion morphology. The location of the implant has a remarkable effect on the corrosion rate. Due to its mechanical characteristics and its corrosion behavior, ZEK100 was judged to be suitable, while AX30, which displays favorable degradation behavior, has too little mechanical strength for applications in weight bearing bones.Entities:
Keywords: animal model; biodegradation; magnesium alloy; mechanical stability; µ computed tomography
Year: 2011 PMID: 28879972 PMCID: PMC5448637 DOI: 10.3390/ma4061144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Results of the X-ray scoring of the tibiae during the clinical follow up period.
| Radiologic changes at the site of implantation | Radiologic changes of the bone adjacent to the implant | Radiologic changes of implant | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formation of new bone at the site of implantation | Accumulation of gas | Formation of new bone at the diaphysis | Hyporadiogenity of the medullary cavity adjecent to the implant | Inhomogenous structure of the corticalis | Structure of the implant | |||||||||||||||||||||
| [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] | |||||||||
| 3 and 6 months groups [d] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 8 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 12 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 6 months | 16 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |||||||||||||
| 20 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 24 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 3 and 6 months groups [d] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 6 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 8 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 12 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 6 months | 16 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 20 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||||||||||||||
| 24 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | ||||||||||||||
[a] Minimum score given a certain time [b] Median of scores given a certain times [c] Maximum score given a certain time [d] X-rays of the 3 and 6 months combined to one median score.
Figure 1Loss of volume of the implants during implantation measured by the in vivo µCT.
Figure 2Changes of the apparent density of the implants during implantation measured by the in vivo µCT.
Figure 3Color mapping of the direct 3D thickness from µCT scans of an exemplary ZEK100 6 months implant. Numbers indicate the respective weeks after implantation.
Figure 4Measurements of the direct 3D thickness of the implants during the implantation measured by the µCT.
Resulting score values of the 2D µCT images of the tibiae.
| Group | Assessment of the bone structure (cavities) | Bone implant contact (trabeculae) | Endosteal formation of new bone | Periosteal formation of new bone | Accumulation of gas | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 5 | [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] | [a] | [b] | [c] |
| AX30 3 months | 0.00 | 1.56 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 1.56 | 0.22 | 1.10 | |||||
| AX30 6 months | 0.56 | 2.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 1.44 | 0.44 | 0.78 | |||||
| ZEK100 3 months | 0.22 | 2.67 | 0.00 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 2.78 | 0.67 | 2.44 | |||||
| ZEK100 6 months | 0.44 | 3.00 | 0.00 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.44 | 2.89 | 0.78 | 1.44 | |||||
[a] Minimum score given [b] Median [c] Maximum score given.
Figure 5Scanning electron microscopy images of implants after explantation.
Weights of the implants initially and after explantation and immersion.
| initial [a] | after [b] | change [c] | [d] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal group | [g] | [g] | [%] | p | |
| AX30 3 months (n = 5) | MV | 0.214 | 0.200 | 0.005 | |
| SD | 0.003 | 0.006 | |||
| AX30 6 months (n = 5) | MV | 0.214 | 0.167 | 21.7 | |
| SD | 0.008 | 0.043 | |||
| ZEK100 3 months (n = 5) | MV | 0.211 | 0.181 | 14.1 | |
| SD | 0.006 | 0.021 | |||
| ZEK100 6 months (n = 5) | MV | 0.211 | 0.161 | 0.014 | |
| SD | 0.010 | 0.034 |
[a] Average initial weight and standard deviation of the implants in the material-time groups. [b] Average weight and standard deviation after explantation and immersion in hydrofluoric acid. [c] Relative weight loss.
[d] Statistical significance.
Mechanical properties of the implants measured by 3 point bending after explantation.
| Fmax | ε-Fmax | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 3 | n = 5 | n = 3 | n = 5 | |||||||
| [N] | [N] | [%] | p | [mm] | [mm] | [%] | p | |||
| AX30 3 months | MV | 177.4 | 84.6 | <0.001 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 0.043 | |||
| SD | 16.5 | 7.6 | 1.6 | 0.1 | ||||||
| AX30 6 months | MV | 177.4 | 52.8 | <0.001 | 5.3 | 0.7 | 0.037 | |||
| SD | 16.5 | 32.5 | 1.6 | 0.3 | ||||||
| ZEK100 3 months | MV | 240.8 | 152.7 | 0.003 | 5.7 | 4.7 | ||||
| SD | 2.4 | 31.2 | 0.1 | 2.1 | ||||||
| ZEK100 6 months | MV | 240.8 | 99.6 | 0.006 | 5.7 | 2.5 | 0.017 | |||
| SD | 2.4 | 52.3 | 0.1 | 1.3 | ||||||
[a] Averaged initial maximum force (Fmax) or averaged initial maximum bending at breakage (ε-Fmax); [b] Maximum force after explantation (Fmax) or maximum bending at breakage (ε-Fmax) after explantation; [c] Percentaged losses compared to the initial state. Significant differences are indicated by bold figures of the change; [d] Level of significance.
Semiquantitative score for the evaluation of radiographs of the tibiae during follow up.
| Radiologic changes at the site of implantation | Radiologic changes of the bone adjacent to the implantation | Radiologic changes of the implant | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formation of new bone at implantation site | Accumulation of gas | Formation of new bone at diaphyses | Hyporadiodensity adjacent to the implant | Inhomogenous cortical structure | Structure of impant | |
| none | none | none | none | none | as on day of implantation | 0 |
| <2 mm width | single bubbles <2 × 4 mm | <1 mm per side | minimal | minimal | minimal structure loss, shape conserved | 1 |
| 2–4 mm width | bubbles (2–4) × (4–8) mm | 1–2 mm per side | moderate | moderate | moderate structure loss, shape conserved | 2 |
| >4 mm width | many bubbles | >2 mm per side | severe | severe | severe structure loss, shape altered | 3 |
Semiquantitative score for the osseous reaction to the implant in µCT 2D images of the tibiae.
| Feature | Parameter | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Overall assessment of the bone structure (cavities) | regular | 0 |
| minor irregularities (<30% of the area) | 1 | |
| distinct irregularities (30–60% of the area) | 2 | |
| severe irregularities (<60% of the area) | 3 | |
| Bone implant contact (trabeculae) | none | 0 |
| <1/3 of the implant surface | 1 | |
| 1/3–2/3 of the implant surface | 2 | |
| >2/3 of the implant surface | 3 | |
| Endosteal formation of new bone | none | 0 |
| <1/3 of the endosteal surface | 1 | |
| 1/3–2/3 of the endosteal surface | 2 | |
| >2/3 of the endosteal surface | 3 | |
| Periosteal formation of new bone | none | 0 |
| <1/3 of the periosteal surface | 1 | |
| and <1/3 of the cortical thickness | ||
| 1/3–2/3 of the periosteal surface | 2 | |
| or 1/3–2/3 of the cortical thickness | ||
| >2/3 of the periosteal surface | 3 | |
| or >2/3 of the cortical thickness | ||
| Accumulation of gas | none | 0 |
| <1/3 of medullary cavity filled with gas bubbles | 1 | |
| 1/3–2/3 of medullary cavity filled with gas bubbles | 2 | |
| >2/3 of medullary cavity filled with gas bubbles | 3 |