On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces

The foreign body reaction composed of macrophages and foreign body giant cells is the end-stage response of the inflammatory and wound healing responses following implantation of a medical device, prosthesis, or biomaterial. A brief, focused overview of events leading to the foreign body reaction is presented. The major focus of this review is on factors that modulate the interaction of macrophages and foreign body giant cells on synthetic surfaces where the chemical, physical, and morphological characteristics of the synthetic surface are considered to play a role in modulating cellular events. These events in the foreign body reaction include protein adsorption, monocyte/macrophage adhesion, macrophage fusion to form foreign body giant cells, consequences of the foreign body response on biomaterials, and cross-talk between macrophages/foreign body giant cells and inflammatory/wound healing cells. Biomaterial surface properties play an important role in modulating the foreign body reaction in the first two to four weeks following implantation of a medical device, even though the foreign body reaction at the tissue/material interface is present for the in vivo lifetime of the medical device. An understanding of the foreign body reaction is important as the foreign body reaction may impact the biocompatibility (safety) of the medical device, prosthesis, or implanted biomaterial and may significantly impact short- and long-term tissue responses with tissue-engineered constructs containing proteins, cells, and other biological components for use in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Our perspective has been on the inflammatory and wound healing response to implanted materials, devices, and tissue-engineered constructs. The incorporation of biological components of allogeneic or xenogeneic origin as well as stem cells into tissue-engineered or regenerative approaches opens up a myriad of other challenges. An in depth understanding of how the immune system interacts with these cells and how biomaterials or tissue-engineered constructs influence these interactions may prove pivotal to the safety, biocompatibility, and function of the device or system under consideration.

Dental and orthopedic implants have been under continuous advancement to improve their interactions with bone and ensure a successful outcome for patients. Surface characteristics such as surface topography and surface chemistry can serve as design tools to enhance the biological response around the implant, with in vitro, in vivo and clinical studies confirming their effects. However, the comprehensive design of implants to promote early and long-term osseointegration requires a better understanding of the role of surface wettability and the mechanisms by which it affects the surrounding biological environment. This review provides a general overview of the available information about the contact angle values of experimental and of marketed implant surfaces, some of the techniques used to modify surface wettability of implants, and results from in vitro and clinical studies. We aim to expand the current understanding on the role of wettability of metallic implants at their interface with blood and the biological milieu, as well as with bacteria, and hard and soft tissues. Copyright © 2014 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

To evaluate the rate and degree of osseointegration at chemically modified moderately rough, hydrophilic (SLActive) and moderately rough, hydrophobic (SLA) implant surfaces during early phases of healing in a human model. The devices used for this study of early healing were 4 mm long and 2.8 mm in diameter and had either an SLActive chemically modified or a moderately rough SLA surface configuration. These devices were surgically installed into the retro-molar area of 49 human volunteers and retrieved after 7, 14, 28 and 42 days of submerged healing. A 5.2-mm-long specially designed trephine with a 4.9 mm inside diameter, allowing the circumferential sampling of 1 mm tissue together with the device was applied. Histologic ground sections were prepared and histometric analyses of the tissue components (i.e. old bone, new bone, bone debris and soft tissue) in contact with the device surfaces were performed. All device sites healed uneventfully. All device surfaces were partially coated with bone debris. A significant fraction of this bone matrix coating became increasingly covered with newly formed bone. The process of new bone formation started already during the first week in the trabecular regions and increased gradually up to 42 days. The percentage of direct contact between newly formed bone and the device (bone-to-implant contact) after 2 and 4 weeks was more pronounced adjacent to the SLActive than to the SLA surface (14.8% vs. 12.2% and 48.3% vs. 32.4%, respectively), but after 42 days, these differences were no longer evident (61.6% vs. 61.5%). While healing showed similar characteristics with bone resorptive and appositional events for both SLActive and SLA surfaces between 7 and 42 days, the degree of osseointegration after 2 and 4 weeks was superior for the SLActive compared with the SLA surface. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.