28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Bone and Cartilage Interfaces With Orthopedic Implants: A Literature Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The interface between a surgical implant and tissue consists of a complex and dynamic environment characterized by mechanical and biological interactions between the implant and surrounding tissue. The implantation process leads to injury which needs to heal over time and the rapidity of this process as well as the property of restored tissue impact directly the strength of the interface. Bleeding is the first and most relevant step of the healing process because blood provides growth factors and cellular material necessary for tissue repair. Integration of the implants placed in poorly vascularized tissue such as articular cartilage is, therefore, more challenging than compared with the implants placed in well-vascularized tissues such as bone. Bleeding is followed by the establishment of a provisional matrix that is gradually transformed into the native tissue. The ultimate goal of implantation is to obtain a complete integration between the implant and tissue resulting in long-term stability. The stability of the implant has been defined as primary (mechanical) and secondary (biological integration) stability. Successful integration of an implant within the tissue depends on both stabilities and is vital for short- and long-term surgical outcomes. Advances in research aim to improve implant integration resulting in enhanced implant and tissue interface. Numerous methods have been employed to improve the process of modifying both stability types. This review provides a comprehensive discussion of current knowledge regarding implant-tissue interfaces within bone and cartilage as well as novel approaches to strengthen the implant-tissue interface. Furthermore, it gives an insight into the current state-of-art biomechanical testing of the stability of the implants. Current knowledge reveals that the design of the implants closely mimicking the native structure is more likely to become well integrated. The literature provides however several other techniques such as coating with a bioactive compound that will stimulate the integration and successful outcome for the patient.

          Related collections

          Most cited references223

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis.

          Porosity and pore size of biomaterial scaffolds play a critical role in bone formation in vitro and in vivo. This review explores the state of knowledge regarding the relationship between porosity and pore size of biomaterials used for bone regeneration. The effect of these morphological features on osteogenesis in vitro and in vivo, as well as relationships to mechanical properties of the scaffolds, are addressed. In vitro, lower porosity stimulates osteogenesis by suppressing cell proliferation and forcing cell aggregation. In contrast, in vivo, higher porosity and pore size result in greater bone ingrowth, a conclusion that is supported by the absence of reports that show enhanced osteogenic outcomes for scaffolds with low void volumes. However, this trend results in diminished mechanical properties, thereby setting an upper functional limit for pore size and porosity. Thus, a balance must be reached depending on the repair, rate of remodeling and rate of degradation of the scaffold material. Based on early studies, the minimum requirement for pore size is considered to be approximately 100 microm due to cell size, migration requirements and transport. However, pore sizes >300 microm are recommended, due to enhanced new bone formation and the formation of capillaries. Because of vascularization, pore size has been shown to affect the progression of osteogenesis. Small pores favored hypoxic conditions and induced osteochondral formation before osteogenesis, while large pores, that are well-vascularized, lead to direct osteogenesis (without preceding cartilage formation). Gradients in pore sizes are recommended for future studies focused on the formation of multiple tissues and tissue interfaces. New fabrication techniques, such as solid-free form fabrication, can potentially be used to generate scaffolds with morphological and mechanical properties more selectively designed to meet the specificity of bone-repair needs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration.

            Osteoinduction is the process by which osteogenesis is induced. It is a phenomenon regularly seen in any type of bone healing process. Osteoinduction implies the recruitment of immature cells and the stimulation of these cells to develop into preosteoblasts. In a bone healing situation such as a fracture, the majority of bone healing is dependent on osteoinduction. Osteoconduction means that bone grows on a surface. This phenomenon is regularly seen in the case of bone implants. Implant materials of low biocompatibility such as copper, silver and bone cement shows little or no osteoconduction. Osseointegration is the stable anchorage of an implant achieved by direct bone-to-implant contact. In craniofacial implantology, this mode of anchorage is the only one for which high success rates have been reported. Osseointegration is possible in other parts of the body, but its importance for the anchorage of major arthroplasties is under debate. Ingrowth of bone in a porous-coated prosthesis may or may not represent osseointegration.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: A review.

              One of the critical issues in orthopaedic regenerative medicine is the design of bone scaffolds and implants that replicate the biomechanical properties of the host bones. Porous metals have found themselves to be suitable candidates for repairing or replacing the damaged bones since their stiffness and porosity can be adjusted on demands. Another advantage of porous metals lies in their open space for the in-growth of bone tissue, hence accelerating the osseointegration process. The fabrication of porous metals has been extensively explored over decades, however only limited controls over the internal architecture can be achieved by the conventional processes. Recent advances in additive manufacturing have provided unprecedented opportunities for producing complex structures to meet the increasing demands for implants with customized mechanical performance. At the same time, topology optimization techniques have been developed to enable the internal architecture of porous metals to be designed to achieve specified mechanical properties at will. Thus implants designed via the topology optimization approach and produced by additive manufacturing are of great interest. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art of topological design and manufacturing processes of various types of porous metals, in particular for titanium alloys, biodegradable metals and shape memory alloys. This review also identifies the limitations of current techniques and addresses the directions for future investigations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Surg
                Front Surg
                Front. Surg.
                Frontiers in Surgery
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-875X
                21 December 2020
                2020
                : 7
                : 601244
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Large Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine , Knoxville, TN, United States
                [2] 2The Center for Renewable Carbon, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee , Knoxville, TN, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: William Robert Walsh, University of New South Wales, Australia

                Reviewed by: Paul Simon Unwin, Independent Researcher, Ludlow, United Kingdom; Narayan Hulse, Fortis Hospital, India

                *Correspondence: Remigiusz M. Grzeskowiak rgrzesko@ 123456vols.utk.edu

                This article was submitted to Orthopedic Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

                Article
                10.3389/fsurg.2020.601244
                7779634
                32118028
                2555c8ac-6a0d-4025-b221-9ced18f99755
                Copyright © 2020 Grzeskowiak, Schumacher, Dhar, Harper, Mulon and Anderson.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 August 2020
                : 25 November 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 224, Pages: 15, Words: 14561
                Categories
                Surgery
                Review

                implant,bone,cartilage,cartilage scaffold,orthopedic implant,osseointegration,implant and tissue interface,biomechanics

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content136

                Cited by16

                Most referenced authors2,250