| Literature DB >> 35683861 |
Sonia B Wahed1, Colin R Dunstan1, Philip A Boughton1, Andrew J Ruys1, Shaikh N Faisal2, Tania B Wahed3, Bidita Salahuddin4, Xinying Cheng1,5, Yang Zhou5, Chun H Wang5, Mohammad S Islam5, Shazed Aziz4.
Abstract
The selection of biomaterials as biomedical implants is a significant challenge. Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and composites of such kind have been extensively used in medical implants, notably in the bearings of the hip, knee, and other joint prostheses, owing to its biocompatibility and high wear resistance. For the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) graft, synthetic UHMWPE is an ideal candidate due to its biocompatibility and extremely high tensile strength. However, significant problems are observed in UHMWPE based implants, such as wear debris and oxidative degradation. To resolve the issue of wear and to enhance the life of UHMWPE as an implant, in recent years, this field has witnessed numerous innovative methodologies such as biofunctionalization or high temperature melting of UHMWPE to enhance its toughness and strength. The surface functionalization/modification/treatment of UHMWPE is very challenging as it requires optimizing many variables, such as surface tension and wettability, active functional groups on the surface, irradiation, and protein immobilization to successfully improve the mechanical properties of UHMWPE and reduce or eliminate the wear or osteolysis of the UHMWPE implant. Despite these difficulties, several surface roughening, functionalization, and irradiation processing technologies have been developed and applied in the recent past. The basic research and direct industrial applications of such material improvement technology are very significant, as evidenced by the significant number of published papers and patents. However, the available literature on research methodology and techniques related to material property enhancement and protection from wear of UHMWPE is disseminated, and there is a lack of a comprehensive source for the research community to access information on the subject matter. Here we provide an overview of recent developments and core challenges in the surface modification/functionalization/irradiation of UHMWPE and apply these findings to the case study of UHMWPE for ACL repair.Entities:
Keywords: biofunctionalization; ligament; surface modification; synthetic graft; tendon; ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683861 PMCID: PMC9182730 DOI: 10.3390/polym14112189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Contrasting approaches for surface functionalization of UHMWPE.
The influence on surface properties of UHMWPE after surface treatment.
| Treatment | Parameters | Additional Peaks Found after Treatment | Elemental Analysis after Oxidation on the Surface (%) | Surface and Tribological Properties | Mechanical Properties | References | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | O | N | Others | ||||||
| Chemical | Chromic acid, hydrogen per oxide, potassium permanganate | 89.6, 73.6, 91.6 | 9.6, 16.5, 6.6 | - | Improvement in surface adhesion properties | Improvement in interfacial tensile strength | [ | ||
| Chemical | Polydopamine, Ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether (EGDGE) | Water contact angle (WCA) decreased from 109° to 97° | 67.5% improvement in mechanical strength | [ | |||||
| Chemical | Polydopamine (PDA), hexamethylene diamine (HMDA) | C-OH, -NH, C=C stretching | 73.14, 74.39, 74.39 | 21.3, 18.65 | 5.13, 6.96 | Shear strength 0.920 MPa | [ | ||
| Chemical | Hyaluronic acid | WCA decreased from 80° to 50°, increased crystallinity | High wear resistance | [ | |||||
| Chemical | PEG-like coating | -OH stretch, C-O-C, C-OH | 68.8 | 31.2 | - | WCA decreased from 90.3° to 44.8° | [ | ||
| Chemical | VTMS and SiO2 | Si-C, Si-O | 40.39 | 35.38 | 24.23 | WCA decreased from 123° to 43°, increased antifouling properties | [ | ||
| Cold plasma | He and O2 gas | C-C stretching, C-N, Hydrogenated amorphous C | Increased surface hydrophilicity and cell adhesion | High wear resistance | [ | ||||
| Cold plasma | H2 and O2 gas | CH vibrations, C-O stretching, C=O | WCA decreased from 102° to 43°, Improved cell adhesion property, Roughness increased from 588 nm to 687 nm | [ | |||||
| PACVD plasma | Air and Ar gas | Tear resistance, 40% increase in tensile strength | [ | ||||||
| ECR plasma | H2 and N2 gas | C-O/C-OH, C-C, C=C, C=O | 60 | 37 | 8 | Increased surface roughness | Increased surface hardness and elastic modulus | [ | |
| ECR plasma | (N2 + H2) and O2 gas | C-N, C-O Stretching, N-H bending, C=O Stretching | WCA decreased from 96° to 22°, improvement in surface cell adhesion | [ | |||||
| ECR plasma | Peroxides, acrylic acid, itaconic acid, collagen | C-O, -COOH, -NH, C-N | [ | ||||||
| DBD + chitosan treatment | (Ar + O2) gas and chitosan | C=O, -COO, C-O/C-N | 93.15, 82.1, 74.0 | 5.8, 15.2, 2.7 | 1.1, 2.7, 3.0 | Surface adhesion increased by 72.2%, WCA decreased from 101° to 82° | Decreased tensile strength by 5.6% | [ | |
| DBD plasma | (He + Ar + air + N2 + H2) gas | C-C, C-C=O, O=C-O | 88.3 | 6.3 | 6.9 | WCA decreased from 95.2° to 70° | [ | ||
| DBD plasma | Ar gas | C-H, -OH, C-C, C=O | WCA decreased from 91° to 67.4° | ||||||
| DBD plasm | Ar gas, Multi walled carbon nanotube | C-H stretching, C-C, O-H, C=O | Wear volume was reduced by 73.3%, surface roughness was reduced by 17%, hardness of the composite increased by 45% | [ | |||||
| Gamma | Thermal treatment + gamma dose | Toughness increased by 67%, | [ | ||||||
| Gamma | Increased cross-linking, wear rate 37% | [ | |||||||
| Gamma | UV + PEG grafting | C=C, C-Si, C=O | Crystallinity increased, resistance to protein adsorption increased | [ | |||||
| Gamma | Irradiation + Vitamin E | Reduced crystallinity, wear resistance | [ | ||||||
| PIII treatment | Ar gas | C=C, -OH, COOH and COO- | WCA decreased from 80° to 28° | [ | |||||
| PIII treatment | N2 + gas | A small decrease in WCA, surface roughness increased from 39 nm to 71 nm | [ | ||||||
| PIII treatment | N2 + gas + HRP protein | 71.1 | 15.5 | 13.4 | Roughness increased from 528° to 1130°, surface area increased from 101.9 nm to 15.6 nm | [ | |||
| PIII treatment | N2 + HRP + PVC | C=O, C-O, -OH | WCA decreased from 90° to 58° | [ | |||||
Physical properties of HDPE and UHMWPE [3].
| Property | HDPE | UHMWPE |
|---|---|---|
| Molecular weight (×106 g/mol) | 0.05–0.25 | 3.5–7.5 |
| Tensile ultimate strength (MPa) | 22–31 | 39–48 |
| Tensile ultimate elongation (%) | 10–1200 | 350–525 |
Elemental analysis of UHMWPE after oxidation on the surface [40].
| Scheme | C (%) | O (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Untreated | 74.2 | 21.9 |
| Chromic acid | 89.6 | 9.6 |
| Potassium permanganate | 73.6 | 16.5 |
| Hydrogen peroxide | 91.6 | 6.6 |
Figure 2SEM images for (a) pristine UHMWPE fibers; (b) UHMWPE-PDA fibers; (c) UHMWPE-PDA-EDGE fibers; (d) UHMWPE − (PDA + EGDE) fibers; and micrographs of the water contact angle test. Reprinted with permission from [41].
Figure 3(a) Pull out test of UHMWPE and modified fibers; (b) SEM images of untreated and treated UHMWPE; (i) UHMWPE fibers/rubber, (ii) UHMWPE–PDA fibers/rubber, (iii) UHMWPE–PDA–EGDE fibers/rubber, and (iv) UHMWPE– (PDA + EGDE) fibers/rubber. Reprinted with permission from [41].
Figure 4Scanning electron microscopy of UHMWPE fibers with tensile fracture surface; (a) epoxy resin, (b) UHMWPE-epoxy resin, (c) UHMWPE-PDA-epoxy resin, and (d) UHMWPE-PDA-HMDA-epoxy resin. Reprinted with permission from [42].
Figure 5(a) Wear rate comparison of conventional UHMWPE and UHMWPE-HA composite and control samples; (b) water contact angle and protein adsorption resistance results of untreated and treated UHMWPE; water flux and protein rejection of various membranes; (c) Water flux; and (d) HA and BSA rejection. Reprinted with permission from [44,45,73].
Figure 6(a) Wear factors of untreated and treated UHMWPE after cold plasma treatment, reprinted with permission from [89]; (b) osteoblast cell adhesion to untreated and cold plasma treated UHMWPE, reprinted with permission from [89]; (c) a schematic diagram of cold atmospheric plasma.
Figure 7L929 cell attachment on untreated and treated UHMWPE. Reprinted with permission from [93].
Adhesion properties of DLN films on UHMWPE substrate [96].
| Ar Gas Flow (mL/min) | LP (w) | Adhesion Strength (MPa) | Load Applied (N) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 180 | 12 | 65.8 |
| 50 | 225 | 33 | 187.3 |
| 75 | 290 | 37 | 209.2 |
| 100 | 260 | 20 | 112.6 |
| 175 | 255 | 12 | 70.6 |
Figure 8(a) Plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition (PACVD) coating of UHMWPE fabric; (b) introduction of additional groups into UHMWPE before and after treatment, reprinted with permission from [34]; (c) (i) friction coefficient of friction of untreated and treated UHMWPE; (ii) scratch penetration vs. load graph, reprinted with permission from [34]; (d) differentiation of PBMNCs to osteoclast a. Untreated UHMWPE, b. HN-1 min, c. O2-1 min, and d. HN-2 min do not display presence of osteoclasts, whereas e. O2-2 min displays the presence of multinucleated giant osteoclasts on its surface (indicated with arrows). Reprinted with permission from [33].
Figure 9(a) Plasma treatment of UHMWPE fabric in an electron-cyclotron resonance (ECR) plasma reactor system. (b) Dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma treatment of polyethylene fabric. (c) Impact of plasma treatment time on tensile strength of modified DBD-chitosan treatment UHMWPE fibers. Reprinted with permission from [47]. (d) Tensile strength of untreated and UV treated UHMWPE. Reprinted with permission from [18]. (e) The influence of degree of graft on tensile strength. Reprinted with permission from [99].
Mechanical strength comparison of untreated and treated UHMWPE [41].
| Samples | Amount of Fibre (vol%) | Tensile Strength MPa |
|---|---|---|
| Raw UHMWPE | 34.6 | 526.7 |
| DBD-UHMWPE | 34.2 | 543.4 |
| BHHBP-DGEBA-UHMWPE | 34.5 | 537.3 |
Coefficient of wear and friction [117].
| Sample | Coefficient of Wear (mm3/Nm) | Coefficient of Friction |
|---|---|---|
| UN | 19.6 × 10−9 | 0.060–0.063 |
| PE1 | 14.1 × 10−9 | 0.066–0.068 |
| PE2 | 8.45 × 10−9 | 0.065–0.066 |
| PE3 | 6.51 × 10−9 | 0.060–0.070 |
Total surface energy, polar, and dispersive components in PIII treated UHMWPE [118].
| Sample | Polar Components (dyne/cm) | Dispersive Components (dyne/cm) | Total Surface Energy (dyne/cm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Untreated | 18.7 | 39.5 | 58.2 |
| PIII treated | 50.7 | 22.1 | 72.8 |
Disadvantages of traditional parameters used for surface functionalization methods [118].
| Parameter | Effects |
|---|---|
| High temperature | Deteriorates the material [ |
| High-intensity energy | Oxidizes the material, increases crystallinity, destroys the lifetime [ |
| UV radiation | Oxidative degradation of the material can damage the material [ |
| Chemical reagent | Changes surface chemistry, the formation of toxic residues and by-products including carcinogens [ |
Advantages and disadvantages of different plasma methods [61,121,122,123].
| Methods | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| DBD plasma | Atmospheric pressure | Sample could be contaminated |
| PACVD plasma | High deposition rate | Time consuming |
| ECR plasma | Low-pressure range | Non-uniform etch surface |
| Cold plasma | Can provide sterile environment | Covers limited surface area |
| PIII | Large treatment area | Difficult to achieve accurate in situ dose monitoring |
Figure 10(a) Water contact angle of UHMWPE before and after protein incubation. Reprinted with permission from [19]. (b) AFM images of UHMWPE with or without protein incubation; (a) pure UHMWPE; (b) after incubation in BSA solution; (c) after incubation in NaHA solution; (d) after incubation in both solutions. Reprinted with permission from [19]. (c) Water contact angle of treated and untreated UHMWPE after surface treatment. Reprinted with permission from [145]. (d) The force displacement curve of three-point bending test for (i) freeze-dried collagen hybrid; (ii) collagen-HAp hybrid. Reprinted with permission from [145]. (e) Antifouling properties of different membranes (M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5): (i) variation of time-dependent flux over three periods with bovine serum albumin (BSA) as a pollutant; (ii) values of FRR with BSA as a pollutant. Reprinted with permission from [70]. (f) Contact angle vs. drop age curves for the original and modified PE porous membranes: (i) untreated PE membrane; (ii) PE-polydopamine composite membrane; (c–f) PE/dopamine-heparin composite membrane; (b) impact of heparin immobilization period for PE membranes on water flux. Reprinted with permission from [65].
Figure 11Unmodified and modified PE porous membrane surface platelet morphology: (a) initial PE membrane, (b) PE/dopamine composite membrane, (c,d) PE/dopamine-heparin composite membrane, (c–e). Reprinted with permission from [65].
Surface property influence on HRP immobilization after PIII treatment on UHMWPE.
| Sample | Roughness | Surface Area (µm2) | C (%) | N (%) | O (%) | Optical Density @450nm from HRP Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Untreated | 528 | 101.9 | 94.9 | Nil | 5.1 | 0.45 |
| PIII treated | 1130 | 105.6 | 71.1 | 13.4 | 15.5 | 0.52 |
Protein attachment on UHMWPE with or without additives [56].
| Samples | HRP Protein Remains after Wash (%) |
|---|---|
| Untreated | 19 |
| PIII treated | 84 |
| PIII treated + Plasticizer | 62–72 |
Figure 12(a) The bar graph represents the coefficient of friction vs. protein concentration for all tested protein solutions at different sliding speed: (i) 10 mm and (ii) 50 mm. Reprinted with permission from [153]. (b) Live (green) and dead (red) cells on PE/PCL a,c, and PE/PCL/BG composites b,d after one a,b and seven c,d days of culture [154].
Mechanical properties of materials for synthetic grafts compared to normal ACL [168].
| Grafts | Ultimate Tensile Load (N) | Stiffness (N/mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Human ACL | 1730 | 242 |
| Human hamstring graft | 3790 | 776 |
| The human patellar tendon graft | 3790–4140 | 685 |
| Carbon fibers | 660 | 230 |
| Gore-Tex prosthesis | 5300 | 322 |
| Dacron | 3631 | 420 |
| Twisted silk matrix | 2337 | 354 |
| Parallel silk matrix | 1740 | 2214 |
| KLAD | 280 | 1500 |
| Trevira | 68.3 | 1866 |
| Leeds-Keio | 270 | 2000 |
| UHMWPE fabric | 52570 | 115 |
A summary of the role of the seven growth factors during tendon and ligament healing.
| Growth Factor | The Active Site of Growth Factors | Role | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PDGF AA | Proliferation, remodeling | Controls DNA and protein synthesis at the injured site, controls the expression of other growth factors. | [ |
| PDGF BB | Proliferation, remodeling | Controls DNA and protein synthesis at the injured site, controls the expression of other growth factors. | [ |
| IGF-1 | Inflammation, proliferation | Supports the proliferation and migration of cells, triggers matrix production. | [ |
| TGFβ | Inflammation | Controls cell migration, proteinase expression, fibronectin-binding interaction, and stimulation of collagen production. | [ |
| VEGF | Proliferation, remodeling | Supports angiogenesis. | [ |
| bFGF | Proliferation, remodeling | Supports cellular migration, angiogenesis. | [ |
| IL1A | Proliferation induces pro-collagen type I and III synthesis | Supports proliferation, and induction. | [ |
| BMP | Remodeling of impaired tissues | Supports angiogenesis. | [ |
| GDF | Proliferation | Supports in ligament/tendon formation. | [ |
| Elastin | Proliferation | Controls DNA and protein synthesis at the injured site. | [ |
| Heparin | Proliferation | Supports the release of growth factors. | [ |
| PRP (Platelet-rich plasma) | Increased cellular metabolic activity, reduced apoptotic rate, and stimulation of collagen production in the cells. | [ |
Figure 13(a) Bioactivity of bioglass; (b) schematic preparation of SF/VEGF coating [37]; (c) morphology of different groups of UHMWPE [37].