| Literature DB >> 34069254 |
Amilton Iatecola1, Guilherme Arthur Longhitano2,3,4, Luiz Henrique Martinez Antunes3,5, André Luiz Jardini3,4, Emilio de Castro Miguel6, Miloslav Béreš3,6, Carlos Salles Lambert7, Tiago Neves Andrade1, Rogério Leone Buchaim8, Daniela Vieira Buchaim9,10, Karina Torres Pomini8,9, Jefferson Aparecido Dias9,11, Daniele Raineri Mesquita Serva Spressão9, Marcílio Felix12, Guinea Brasil Camargo Cardoso5, Marcelo Rodrigues da Cunha1.
Abstract
Cobalt-base alloys (Co-Cr-Mo) are widely employed in dentistry and orthopedic implants due to their biocompatibility, high mechanical strength and wear resistance. The osseointegration of implants can be improved by surface modification techniques. However, complex geometries obtained by additive manufacturing (AM) limits the efficiency of mechanical-based surface modification techniques. Therefore, plasma immersion ion implantation (PIII) is the best alternative, creating nanotopography even in complex structures. In the present study, we report the osseointegration results in three conditions of the additively manufactured Co-Cr-Mo alloy: (i) as-built, (ii) after PIII, and (iii) coated with titanium (Ti) followed by PIII. The metallic samples were designed with a solid half and a porous half to observe the bone ingrowth in different surfaces. Our results revealed that all conditions presented cortical bone formation. The titanium-coated sample exhibited the best biomechanical results, which was attributed to the higher bone ingrowth percentage with almost all medullary canals filled with neoformed bone and the pores of the implant filled and surrounded by bone ingrowth. It was concluded that the metal alloys produced for AM are biocompatible and stimulate bone neoformation, especially when the Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy with a Ti-coated surface, nanostructured and anodized by PIII is used, whose technology has been shown to increase the osseointegration capacity of this implant.Entities:
Keywords: Co-Cr-Mo alloy; additive manufacturing; orthopedic implants; osseointegration; plasma immersion ion implantation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34069254 PMCID: PMC8156199 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050724
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Summary of conditions and nomenclature adopted for each group of implants.
| Group | Condition |
|---|---|
| G1: Control | Control group—no implant |
| G2: Co | Co-28Cr-6Mo made by AM (as-built) |
| G3: Co PIII | Co-28Cr-6Mo made by AM with surface nanostructured and anodized by PIII |
| G4: Co+Ti PIII | Co-28Cr-6Mo made by AM with surface coated with Ti, nanostructured and anodized by PIII |
Co: cobalt; PIII: plasma immersion ion implantation; Ti: titanium.
Figure 1(A) Experimental design. (A1) Random Allocation—Forty adult male Wistar rats (Rattus norvegicus), 120 days old, weighing around 340 g. Monocortical bone defect model 3 mm in diameter in the distal metaphysis of the left femur. (A2) Treatments—groups according to the type of implant or not: No implant (blood clot), Co-28Cr-6Mo, Co-28Cr-6Mo with surface nanostructured by PIII and Co-28Cr-6Mo with surface coated with Ti and nanostructured by PIII. (A3) Experimental groups: G1 (n = 10)—bone defect filled with blood clot, no implant; G2 (n = 10)—bone defect filled with Co-28Cr-6Mo implant; G3 (n = 10)—bone defect filled with Co-28Cr-6Mo implant with surface nanostructured by PIII; G4 (n = 10)—bone defect filled with Co-28Cr-6Mo implant with surface coated with Ti and nanostructured by PIII. (B) Surgical procedure. (B1) Skin incision on the anteromedial aspect of the thigh. (B2) Exposure of the cortical bone of the surgical area. (B3) 3 mm bone defect in the distal metaphysis of the femur. (B4) Implantation of the metallic alloy in the surgical bed. (B5) Tegument suture with 5-0 nylon thread.
Figure 2Histomorphometric analysis of the formed bone volume (A,B) and the biomechanical resistance of the surgical area in the femur of rats (A’,B’). Histological sections of the total surgical area (A) stained with Stevens blue to delimit the volume of the bone defect (orange) and the formed bone (yellow) (B). In biomechanics (A’), the surgical area (arrows, (B’)) was subjected to a load by the rod of the EMIC 23-2S equipment (A’). Metallic implant (MI).
Figure 3Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of various surface finishes. Overall view from the as-built AM implant (A). As-built surface (B,C). Nanostructured and anodized by the PIII surface (D,E). Coated with Ti and nanostructured and anodized by the PIII surface (F,G). Black arrows in (B) indicate dendritic arms and in (E) spherical oxides.
Surface chemical composition obtained from the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis.
| Group | Elements (Weight Percent—wt %) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co | Cr | Mo | Si | Mn | O | Ti | |
| G2: Co | 63.04 ± 0.10 | 28.66 ± 0.07 | 6.55 ± 0.09 | 1.03 ± 0.03 | 0.73 ± 0.04 | - | - |
| G3: Co PIII | 53.14 ± 0.13 | 25.9 ± 0.09 | 5.07 ± 0.10 | 0.56 ± 0.02 | 0.62 ± 0.04 | 14.71 ± 0.15 | - |
| G4: Co+Ti PIII | 29.47 ± 0.12 | 13.72 ± 0.08 | 2.53 ± 0.08 | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.43 ± 0.05 | 20.58 ± 0.2 | 32.98 ± 0.12 |
Co: cobalt; PIII: plasma immersion ion implantation; Ti: titanium; Cr: chrome; Mo: molybdenum; Si: silicon; Mn: manganese; O: oxygen; Ti: titanium.
Figure 4Evaluation of macroscopic features (A–D) and X-ray (A’–D’) of defects in the femur bone rats (arrows). Groups: G1: Control—no implant; G2: Co—Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy; G3: Co PIII- Co-28Cr-6Mo with surface nanostructured by PIII; G4: Co+Ti PIII—Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy surface coated with Ti and nanostructured by PIII. Macroscopic images do not show any focus of infection or inflammatory process. The radiographic images show correct positioning of the metallic implants (MI) in the G2, G3, G4 groups as well as their radiodensities.
Figure 5Evaluation of histologic features of defects in the femur bone of rats, Stevens blue stain. Groups: G1: Control—no implant; G2: Co—Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy; G3: Co PIII—Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy with the surface nanostructured by PIII; G4: Co+Ti PIII—Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy with the surface coated with Ti and nanostructured by PIII. All groups show bone neoformation (yellow star) from the defect margins being more intense in G4 since it involves most of the metallic implant and proportionally with a lower volume of connective tissue, essential for osseointegration. Metallic implant (MI). Bar: 100 µm.
Figure 6Evaluation of histologic features of defects in the rat femur bone, Von Kossa’s Staining under conventional light microscopy (A–D) and Fluorescent Labeling under Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (A’–D’). Groups: G1: Control—no implant; G2: Co—Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy; G3: Co PIII—Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy with surface nanostructured by PIII; G4: Co+Ti PIII—Co-28Cr-6Mo alloy with surface coated with Ti and nanostructured by PIII. All groups show bone neoformation (red star) from the defect margins being more intense in G4 since it involves most of the metallic implant and proportionally with a lower volume of connective tissue, essential for osseointegration. The Von Kossa technique demonstrated the mineralization of newly formed bone. Fluorescence was similar for all groups with new bone formation from the margins of the lesion, and there is a predominance of green over red. Metallic implant (MI). Bar: 100 µm.
Figure 7Percentage (%) of newly formed bone in the studied groups. G1 (Control), G2 (Co), G3 (Co PIII), G4 (Co+Ti PIII).
Figure 8Maximum load of mechanical resistance of the surgical area in the studied groups. G1 (Control), G2 (Co), G3 (Co PIII), G4 (Co+Ti PIII).