Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T02:58:20.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In vivo bone regeneration analysis of trilayer coated 316L stainless steel implant in rabbit model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2018

Priyanka Majee ,
Shampa Dhar ,
P.K. Mitra ,
Lalzawmliana V. ,
Samit Kumar Nandi ,
Piyali Basak  and
Biswanath Kundu
Priyanka Majee
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India
Shampa Dhar
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India
P.K. Mitra
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India
Lalzawmliana V.
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata 700037, India
Samit Kumar Nandi*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata 700037, India
Piyali Basak
Affiliation:
School of Bioscience and Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India
Biswanath Kundu*
Affiliation:
Bioceramics and Coating Division, CSIR-Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute, Kolkata 700032, India
*
a)Address all correspondence to these authors. e-mail: samitnandi1967@gmail.com
b)e-mail: biswa_kundu@rediffmail.com
Get access

Abstract

To increase the corrosion prevention of stainless steel implant and fast recovery due to new bone-cell formation at the orthopedic implant site, in the present investigation, a trilayered (with bioceramic interlayer sandwiched between innermost passivated surface and outermost polymer coating) 316L stainless steel (SS) implant was designed and investigated. It was inferred that this new designed implant invokes faster and more bone-cell formation than uncoated commercially available 316L SS implants. Faster bone-cell formation at the coated implant site reduces the initial threat of implant corrosion. The electrochemical corrosion study proved that this model of coated implants is able to prevent corrosion up to 90% better than uncoated commercially available 316L SS. Subsequently, preclinical studies in the rabbit bone defect model (which included histology, radiology, fluorochrome labeling, push-out test, and scanning electron microscopy taken after 45 and 90 days) proved higher rate of new bone tissue formation and better push-out strength between tissue in contact and the coated implant. The toxicological study of vital organs like liver, kidney, and heart also exhibited no abnormality. The outcome of the experimentations indicates suitability of this trilayered 316L SS implant for bone repair and healing.

Keywords

SS 316L implanttrilayered coatingcorrosion testbone healingtoxicityin vitroin vivo
Type
Invited Article
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 33 , Issue 14: Focus Issue: 3D Printing of Biomaterials , 27 July 2018 , pp. 2106 - 2117
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 

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

Holzapfel, B.M., Reichert, J.C., Schantz, J-T., Gbureck, U., Rackwitz, L., Noth, U., Jakob, F., Rudert, M., Groll, J., and Hutmacher, D.W.: How smart do biomaterials need to be? A translational science and clinical point of view. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 65, 581 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thamaraiselvi, T. and Rajeswari, S.: Biological evaluation of bioceramic materials—A review. Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs 18, 9 (2004).Google Scholar
Vallet-Regi, M.: Ceramics for medical applications. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 97 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieger, W., Leyen, S., Kobel, S., and Weber, W.: The use of bioceramics in dental and medical applications. Digital Dent. News 3, 6 (2009).Google Scholar
Hench, L.L. and Wilson, J.: An Introduction to Bioceramics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, X., De Groot, K., Wang, D., Hu, Q., Wismeijer, D., and Liu, Y.: Suppl 1-M4: A review paper on biomimetic calcium phosphate coatings. Open Biomed. Eng. J. 9, 56 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeGeros, R.Z.: Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: Calcium phosphates. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 395, 81 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, B.G.X., Myers, D.E., Wallace, G.G., Brandt, M., and Choong, P.F.M.: Bioactive coatings for orthopaedic implants - Recent trends in development of implant coatings. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 15, 11878 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babu, N.R., Manwatkar, S., Rao, K.P., and Kumar, T.S.S.: Bioactive coatings on 316L stainless steel implants. Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs 17, 43 (2004).Google Scholar
He, J., Huang, T., Gan, L., Zhou, Z., Jiang, B., Wu, Y., Wu, F., and Gu, Z.: Collagen-infiltrated porous hydroxyapatite coating and its osteogenic properties: In vitro and in vivo study. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., Part A 100, 1706 (2012).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saran, N., Zhang, R., and Turcotte, R.E.: Osteogenic protein-1 delivered by hydroxyapatite-coated implants improves bone ingrowth in extracortical bone bridging. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 469, 1470 (2011).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kargupta, R., Bok, S., Darr, C.M., Crist, B.D., Gangopadhyay, K., Gangopadhyay, S., and Sengupta, S.: Coatings and surface modifications imparting antimicrobial activity to orthopedic implants. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 6, 475 (2014).Google ScholarPubMed
Bumgardner, J.D., Wiser, R., Gerard, P.D., Bergin, P., Chestnutt, B., Marini, M., Ramsey, V., Elder, S.H., and Gilbert, J.A.: Chitosan: Potential use as a bioactive coating for orthopaedic and craniofacial/dental implants. J. Biomater. Sci., Polym. Ed. 14, 423 (2003).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Correlo, V.M., Boesel, L.F., Bhattacharya, M., Mano, J.F., Neves, N.M., and Reis, R.L.: Hydroxyapatite reinforced chitosan and polyester blends for biomedical applications. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 290, 1157 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, S.K. and Kannan, S.: Development, mechanical evaluation and surface characteristics of chitosan/polyvinyl alcohol based polymer composite coatings on titanium metal. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 40, 314 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zankovych, S., Diefenbeck, M., Bossert, J., Muckley, T., Schrader, C., Schmidt, J., Schubert, H., Bischoff, S., Faucon, M., and Finger, U.: The effect of polyelectrolyte multilayer coated titanium alloy surfaces on implant anchorage in rats. Acta Biomater. 9, 4926 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J.M.: Biological responses to materials. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 31, 81 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieslander, A.P., Nordin, M.K., Hansson, B., Baldetorp, B., and Kjellstrand, P.T.T.: In vitro toxicity of biomaterials determined with cell density, total protein, cell cycle distribution and adenine nucleotides. Biomater. Artif. Cells Immobil. Biotechnol. 21, 63 (1993).Google ScholarPubMed
Majee, P. and Mitra, P.K.: Preventive coating of tri-calcium phosphate (TCP) on implantable 304L SS. Icastor J. Eng. 8, 117 (2015).Google Scholar
Kokubo, T. and Takadama, H.: How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials 27, 2907 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, J.A., Palanca, A.A., Bellino, M.J., and Lowenberg, D.W.: Assessment of compromised fracture healing. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 20, 273 (2012).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chew, K-K., Zein, S.H.S., and Ahmad, A.L.: The corrosion scenario in human body: Stainless steel 316L orthopaedic implants. Nat. Sci. 4, 184 (2012).Google Scholar
Kamachimudali, U., Sridhar, T.M., and Raj, B.: Corrosion of bio implants. Sadhana 28, 601 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.J. and Young, Y.M.: Study on the passive film of type 316 stainless steel. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 8, 11847 (2013).Google Scholar
Bosco, R., Van Den Beucken, J., Leeuwenburgh, S., and Jansen, J.: Surface engineering for bone implants: A trend from passive to active surfaces. Coatings 2, 95 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thamaraiselvi, T.V. and Rajeswari, S.: Electrochemical behaviour of alkali treated and hydroxyapatite coated 316 LVM. Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs 18, 242 (2005).Google Scholar
Dhar, S. and Mitra, P.K.: Electrochemical behaviour of hydroxyapatite coatings on phosphate passivated 316L stainless steel in Ringer’s solution. Icastor J. Eng. 5, 155 (2012).Google Scholar
Dhar, S., Mitra, P.K., and Duari, B.: Corrosion behaviour of hydroxyapatite coatings on borate and phosphate-passivated 316L stainless steel in Ringer’s solution. Paint India 62, 63 (2012).Google Scholar
Arinzeh, T.L., Peter, S.J., Archambault, M.P., Van Den Bos, C., Gordon, S., Kraus, K., Smith, A., and Kadiyala, S.: Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells regenerate bone in a critical-sized canine segmental defect. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 85, 1927 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gaalen, S.M., Kruyt, M.C., Geuze, R.E., de Bruijn, J.D., Alblas, J., and Dhert, W.J.A.: Use of fluorochrome labels in in vivo bone tissue engineering research. Tissue Eng., Part B 16, 209 (2010).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovar, J.L., Xu, X., Draney, D., Cupp, A., Simpson, M.A., and Olive, D.M.: Near-infrared-labeled tetracycline derivative is an effective marker of bone deposition in mice. Anal. Biochem. 416, 167 (2011).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahners, L.E. and Bos, G.D.: Fluorescent tetracycline labeling as an aid to debridement of necrotic bone in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. J. Orthop. Trauma 16, 345 (2002).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, C.J., Thornton, V.F., and Brown, W.A.B.: Incorporation of tetracycline into impeded and unimpeded mandibular incisors of the mouse. Calcif. Tissue Int. 26, 29 (1978).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, Z., Neoh, K.G., Kang, E.T., Poh, C., and Wang, W.: Bacterial adhesion and osteoblast function on titanium with surface-grafted chitosan and immobilized RGD peptide. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., Part A 86, 865 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Martino, A., Sittinger, M., and Risbud, M.V.: Chitosan: A versatile biopolymer for orthopaedic tissue-engineering. Biomaterials 26, 5983 (2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohara, N., Hayashi, Y., Yamada, S., Kim, S-K., Matsunaga, T., Yanagiguchi, K., and Ikeda, T.: Early gene expression analyzed by cDNA microarray and RT-PCR in osteoblasts cultured with water-soluble and low molecular chitooligosaccharide. Biomaterials 25, 1749 (2004).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunski, J.B., Puleo, D.A., and Nanci, A.: Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: Current status and future developments. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 15, 15 (1999).Google Scholar
Kempen, D.H.R., Lu, L., Heijink, A., Hefferan, T.E., Creemers, L.B., Maran, A., Yaszemski, M.J., and Dhert, W.J.A.: Effect of local sequential VEGF and BMP-2 delivery on ectopic and orthotopic bone regeneration. Biomaterials 30, 2816 (2009).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansson, C.B., Han, C.H., Wennerberg, A., and Albrektsson, T.: A quantitative comparison of machined commercially pure titanium and titanium–aluminum–vanadium implants in rabbit bone. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 13, 315 (1998).Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, Z. and Hu, Q.: Preparation and properties of three-dimensional hydroxyapatite/chitosan nanocomposite rods. Biomed. Mater. 5, 045007 (2010).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed