| Literature DB >> 32499489 |
Bernd Wegener1, Anton Sichler2, Stefan Milz3,4, Christoph Sprecher4, Korbinian Pieper5, Walter Hermanns6, Volkmar Jansson2, Berthold Nies7, Bernd Kieback8, Peter Ernst Müller2, Veronika Wegener2, Peter Quadbeck8.
Abstract
Bone replacement and osteosynthesis require materials which can at least temporarily bear high mechanical loads. Ideally, these materials would eventually degrade and would be replaced by bone deposited from the host organism. To date several metals, notably iron and iron-based alloys have been identified as suitable materials because they combine high strength at medium corrosion rates. However, currently, these materials do not degrade within an appropriate amount of time. Therefore, the aim of the present study is the development of an iron-based degradable sponge-like (i.e. cellular) implant for bone replacement with biomechanically tailored properties. We used a metal powder sintering approach to manufacture a cylindrical cellular implant which in addition contains phosphor as an alloying element. No corrosion inhibiting effects of phosphorus have been found, the degradation rate was not altered. Implant prototypes were tested in an animal model. Bone reaction was investigated at the bone-implant-interface and inside the cellular spaces of the implant. Newly formed bone was growing into the cellular spaces of the implant after 12 months. Signs of implant degradation were detected but after 12 months, no complete degradation could be observed. In conclusion, iron-based open-porous cellular biomaterials seem promising candidates for the development of self-degrading and high load bearing bone replacement materials.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32499489 PMCID: PMC7272637 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66289-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Operative site of the defect. (a) shows the empty drill hole, the placed implant is shown in (b), and (c) displays the implant’s location in the lateral X-ray view.
Figure 2Sectional plane for contact radiography (a) and schematic example of contact radiography (b). (c) shows the evaluation scheme of contact radiographies with the different rings of interest (ROI) within the implant and the surrounding bone bed. The inner-most aqua ring, the lime ring and the olive ring represent the area inside the implant. The fuchsia and yellow ring represent the area of the bone bed. The dark blue area shows an area that could not be evaluated, e.g. due to contact to medullary space, therefore this area is excluded from statistical evaluation.
Figure 3SEM-picture of an open-cell Fe0.6P structure (a) and light-microscopic cross section of the etched material (b). The microstructure displays the typical perlitic-ferritic structure of an hypoeutectoid steel. Dark dots represent micropores. SEM-picture of a cross section of an open-cell Fe0.6P structure (c) and EDX-Mapping of the same strut (d). The mapping shows a unifomly distributed phyosphorus content.
Figure 4Compression test curves of the cellular Fe0.6P structures with densities of 1.0 and 1.4 g/cm³.
Carbon content, oxygen content and compression strength of implanted open-cell structures.
| density [g/cm³] | carboncontent [wt.-%] | oxygencontent [wt.-%] | compressionstrength [MPa] | youngsmodulus [GPa] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 0.36 ± 0.03 | 0.06 ± 0.04 | 13.1 ± 1.2 | 0.8 ± 0.2 |
| 1.4 | 0.24 ± 0.11 | 0.05 ± 0.03 | 22.8 ± 1.1 | 1.3 ± 0.2 |
Figure 5Overview of a cross section 6 months after operation with standard Giemsa-Eosin staining shows the beginning ingrowth (*) of the implant (a). Giant cells are found at the interface at the edge of the implant as sign of absorption of corrosion particles. The central area includes an implant area with closed pores (**). Such regions appear in a few of the implants. Biological activity cannot be detected in this specific area in contrast to the open pore areas. After 6 months the 1.0 g/cm3 group (b) and the 1.4 g/cm3 group (c) show distinct formation of osteoid at the implant (*) and degradation of implant particles (**), in particular at the bone-implant interface. Individual areas marginally already show slight mineralization (***). After 12 months the 1.0 g/cm3 group (d) exhibit progressive formation of osteoid with formation of a trabecular network (*). Mineralization of the newly built bone has not yet taken place. After the same period the 1.4 g/cm3 group after shows extensive mineralization of the newly built osteoid at the margin contacting the implant (*). The immediate bone-implant interface shows a thin osteoid margin that is not yet mineralized (**).
Figure 6Newly build bone formation shown in contact radiography in a follow up of 12 months in the group of 1.0 g/cm3 (below) and 1.4 g/cm3 (middle) and the control group (above).
Figure 7Relative area of the open-cell implant shown in contact radiography in a follow up of 12 months in the group of 1.0 g/cm3 (above) and 1.4 g/cm3 (below).