Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T12:19:52.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ion Implantation as Surface Treatment for Osseointegration of Musculoskeletal Implants: From the Lab to the Clinic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Iñigo Braceras ,
Jose Iñaki Alava ,
Roberto Muñoz  and
Miguel Angel De Maeztu
Iñigo Braceras
Affiliation:
[email protected]@begira.com, Inasmet-Tecnalia, Health Unit, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain
Jose Iñaki Alava
Affiliation:
[email protected], Inasmet-Tecnalia, Health Unit, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain
Roberto Muñoz
Affiliation:
[email protected], Inasmet-Tecnalia, Health Unit, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain
Miguel Angel De Maeztu
Affiliation:
[email protected], Private Practice, Tolosa, Spain
Get access

Abstract

A key process in a successful treatment of patients with a great variety of musculoskeletal implants requires a fast, reliable and consistent osseointegration. Among the parameters that affect this process, it is widely admitted that implant surface topography, surface energy and composition play an important role.

Different surface modification techniques to improve osseointegration have been proposed and tested to date, but most focus on microscale features, and few control surface modifications at nanoscale. On the other hand, ion implantation modifies the outermost surface properties in relation to the nanotopography, chemical and physical characteristics at nanoscale. The meta-stable surface that results from the treatment, affects the adsorption of bio-molecules in the very first stages of the implant placement, and thus the signaling pathway that promotes the differentiation and apposition of osteoblast cells.

This study aimed at assessing the performance, in terms of osseointegration levels and speed, of ion implanted titanium made implants. The study included several in vitro and in vivo tests. The latter, comprised different insertion periods and both experimental and commercial implants as comparative surfaces. The final stage of the study included clinical trials in human patients.

In each and every case, bone integration improvement of tested materials/implants was achieved for the CO ion implanted samples. Furthermore, contact osteogenesis was observed in the ion implanted samples, unlike the Ti control samples, where only distance osteogenesis occurred, being this potentially one of the reasons for their faster healing and osseointegration process.

Finally, the use of ion implantation as a surface modification tool that allows for evaluating the effects of nanotopography and composition changes independently is presented.

Keywords

ion-implantationbonenanostructure
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1181: Symposium DD – Ion Beams and Nano-Engineering , 2009 , 1181-DD08-02
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 Albrektsson, T. Brånemark, P.I., Hansson, H.-A. and Lindstrom, L. Acta Orthop. Scand. 52, 155 (1981).Google Scholar
2 Mendonça, G., Mendonça, D.B.S., Aragão, F.J.L. and Cooper, L.F. Biomaterials 29(28), 3822–3835 (2008).Google Scholar
3 Dalby, M.J. McCloy, D. Robertson, M. Wilkinson, C.D.W. and Oreffo, R.O.C. Biomaterials, 27(8), 1306–1315 (2006).Google Scholar
4 Zhao, G. Raines, A.L. Wieland, M. Schwartz, Z. and Boyan, B.D. Biomaterials, 28(18), 2821–2829 (2007).Google Scholar
5 Khang, D. Lu, J. Yao, C. Haberstroh, K.M. and Webster, T.J. Biomaterials, 29(8), 970–983 (2008).Google Scholar
6 Zhang, L. Webster, T.J. Nano Today, 4(1), 66–80 (2009).Google Scholar
7 Webster, T.J. and Ejiofor, J.U. Biomaterials, 25(19), 4731–4739 (2004).Google Scholar
8 Flemming, R.G. C. Murphy, J. Abrams, G.A. Goodman, S.L. and P. Nealey, F. Biomaterials 20(6), 573–588 (1999).Google Scholar
9 Marcotte, L. and Tabrizian, M. IRBM 29(2-3), 77–88 (2008).Google Scholar
10 Maeztu, M.A. De, Braceras, I. Alava, J.I. and Gay-Escoda, C., Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37(5), 441–447 (2008).Google Scholar
11 Braceras, I. Alava, J.I. Goikoetxea, L. Maeztu, M.A. de, Onate, J.I. Surf. Coat. Technol. 201(19-20), 8091–8098 (2007).Google Scholar
12 Aubin, J.E. Liu, F. Malaval, L. and Gupta, A.K. Bone 17, 77S (1995).Google Scholar
13 Orsini, G. Assenza, B. Scarano, A. Piatteli, M. and Piatteli, A. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15, 779–784 (2000).Google Scholar
14 Cochran, D.L. Buser, D. Bruggenkate, C.M. Ten, Weingart, D. Taylor, T.M. Bernard, J.P. Peters, F. and Simpson, J.P. Clin Oral Implants Res 13, 144–153 (2002).Google Scholar