Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:01:48.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nano-Surface Modification on Titanium Implants for Drug Delivery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Chang Yao  and
Thomas J Webster
Chang Yao
Affiliation:
chang_yao@brown.edu, BROWN UNIVERSITY, DIVISION OF ENGINEERING, 182 HOPE ST, PROVIDENCE, RI, 02912, United States
Thomas J Webster
Affiliation:
thomas_webster@brown.edu, BROWN UNIVERSITY, PROVIDENCE, RI, 02912, United States
Get access

Abstract

The surface layer of titanium implants, i.e. titanium dioxide, is responsible for the inertness of titanium-based implants within the human body. However, their cytocompatibility properties and long-term efficacy are limited without further surface engineering since the average functional lifetime of an orthopedic implant is only 10 to 15 years. In this study, an electrochemical method known as anodization was used to create titania nanotubular structures on titanium implant surfaces. These nanotubes were about 60 nm wide (inner diameter) and 200 nm deep. In vitro studies found that anodized surfaces consisting of titania nanotube arrays were favored by bone-forming cells (osteoblasts) compared to unanodized surfaces. These titania nano-tubular structures were utilized here as novel drug release delivery systems. It is proposed that the system designed here can have multi-functional drug release to inhibit infection and wound inflammation while increasing new bone formation. For this purpose, antibiotic drugs (penicillin and streptomycin) were loaded into these nanotubular structures by physical adsorption. To mediate interactions between drug molecules and nanotube walls, anodized titanium nanotubes were modified by silanization to possess amine or methyl groups on their surface instead of −OH groups. Results showed increased hydrophobicity of chemically modified titania nanotubes (methyl > amine > hydroxyl terminated surface). These drug loaded substrates were soaked in phosphate buffered solution in a simulated body environment to determine drug release behavior. Buffer solutions were collected and replaced every day. The eluted drug amounts were measured spectroscopically. Results showed more antibiotic penicillin and streptomycin released from chemically modified nanotubes compared to unanodized titanium substrates; specifically, titania anodized nanotubes functionalized with −OH groups did quite well. In this manner, this study advances titanium currently used in orthopedics to possess drug release behavior which can improve orthopedic implant efficacy.

Keywords

Tinanostructurebiomaterial
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1054: Symposium FF – Synthesis and Surface Engineering of Three-Dimensional Nanostructures , 2007 , 1054-FF09-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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. Moran, C.G., Horton, T.C., BMJ 320, 820 (2000).Google Scholar
2. Brunette, D.M, Tengvall, P., Textor, M., and Thomsen, P., Titanium in medicine: material science, surface science, engineering, biological responses and medical applications, (Springer 2001) p. 232.Google Scholar
3. Larsson, C., Thomsen, P., Aronsson, B. O., Rodahl, M., Lausmaa, J., Kasemo, B. and Ericson, L. E., Biomaterials 17, 605 (1996).Google Scholar
4. Kim, H. M., Miyaji, F., . Kokubo, T., Nakamura, T., J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 8, 341 (1997)Google Scholar
5. Sittig, C., Textor, M., N. D. Spencer, Wieland, M., and Vallotton, P. H., J. Mater. Sci.: Mater.Med. 10, p.35 (1999).Google Scholar
6. Sato, M., Slamovich, E. B. and Webster, T. J., Biomaterials 26, 1349 (2005).Google Scholar
7. Furlong, R., Osborn, J. F., J. Bone Joint Surg. 73B, 741 (2001).Google Scholar
8. Webster, T.J., Advances in chemical engineering 27, 125 (2001).Google Scholar
9. Huang, H.H., Ho, C.T., Lee, T.H., Lee, T.L., Liao, K.K., and Chen, F.L, Biomolecular Engineering 21, 93 (2004).Google Scholar
10. Anselme, K., Bigerelle, M., Acta Biomaterialia 1, 211 (2005).Google Scholar
11. Shin, D., Arps, J.H., Sylvia, V.L., and Dean, D.D., J Dent Res 84(A), 03 (2005).Google Scholar
12. Zhu, X., Chen, J., Scheideler, L., Reichl, R. and Geis-Gerstorfer, J., Biomaterials 25, 4087 (2004).Google Scholar
13. Yao, C. and Webster, T. J., Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 6, 2682 (2006).Google Scholar
14. Yao, C., Slamovich, E. B., and Webster, T. J., Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, in press.Google Scholar
15. Yao, C., Perla, V., McKenzie, J., Slamovich, E.B., and Webster, T.J., Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology 1, 68 (2005).Google Scholar
16. Dubruel, P., Vanderleyden, E., Bergada, M, Paepe, I.D., Chen, H., Kuypers, S., Luyten, J., Schrooten, J., Hoorebeke, L.V., Schacht, E., Surface Science 600, 2562 (2006).Google Scholar
17. Popat, K. C., Eltgroth, M., LaTempa, T. J., Grime, C. A., Desai, T. A., Biomaterials 28, 4880 (2007).Google Scholar