From Basic Science to Clinical Perfection: What Defines the Orthopedic Biocompatible Implant?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Biomaterial: Brief History and Definition
3. The Orthopedic Biomaterial: State-of-the-Art Emerging Concepts
4. From Laboratory to Clinical Practice: In Vitro Biocompatibility Testing
4.1. Human Bone Derived Cells: Osteoblasts Behavior Analysis on Biomaterials
4.2. Orthopedic Implant Osseointegration: Improvements, Innovations and Foresights
4.3. Novel Biomaterials in Clinical Practice: Difficulties and Concerns
5. Animal Models and In Vivo Biocompatibility Testing
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ko, W.H. Early History and Challenges of Implantable Electronics. ACM J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. 2012, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Madry, H.; Grässel, S.; Nöth, U.; Relja, B.; Bernstein, A.; Docheva, D.; Kauther, M.D.; Katthagen, J.C.; Bader, R.; van Griensven, M.; et al. The future of basic science in orthopaedics and traumatology: Cassandra or Prometheus? Eur. J. Med. Res. 2021, 26, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shah, J.B. The history of wound care. J. Am. Coll. Certif. Wound Spec. 2011, 3, 65–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Marin, E.; Boschetto, F.; Pezzotti, G. Biomaterials and biocompatibility: An historical overview. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2020, 108, 1617–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, J. Biomaterials in orthopedic surgery. Am. J. Surg. 1967, 1, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratner, B.D.; Hoffman, A.S.; Schoen, F.J.; Lemons, J. Biomaterials Science: A Multidisciplinary Endeavor; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Park, J.B. Introduction. In Biomaterials Science and Engineering; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1984; ISBN 978-1-4612-9710-9. [Google Scholar]
- Todros, S.; Todesco, M.; Bagno, A. Biomaterials and Their Biomedical Applications: From Replacement to Regeneration. Processes 2021, 9, 1949. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, K.; Ma, B.; Hu, K.; Yuan, B.; Sun, X.; Song, X.; Tang, Z.; Lin, H.; Zhu, X.; Zheng, Y.; et al. Evidence-based biomaterials research. Bioact Mater. 2022, 25, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, D.F.; David, F. European Society for Biomaterials Definitions in biomaterials. In Proceedings of the Consensus Conference of the European Society for Biomaterials, Chester, UK, 3–5 March 1986; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Chester, UK; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
- Doherty, P.J. Biomaterial-Tissue Interfaces. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Biomaterials, Chester, UK, 9–11 September 1991; Doherty, P.J., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Din, F.U.; Aman, W.; Ullah, I.; Qureshi, O.S.; Mustapha, O.; Shafique, S.; Zeb, A. Effective use of nanocarriers as drug delivery systems for the treatment of selected tumors. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 7291–7309. [Google Scholar]
- Sheng, X.; Wang, A.; Wang, Z.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.; Li, C. Advanced Surface Modification for 3D-Printed Titanium Alloy Implant Interface Functionalization. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 850110. [Google Scholar]
- Comino-Garayoa, R.; Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann, J.; Peláez, J.; López-Suárez, C.; Martínez-González, J.M.; Suárez, M.J. Allergies to Titanium Dental Implants: What Do We Really Know about Them? A Scoping Review. Biology 2020, 9, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, Y.C.; Bae, J.-H.; Lee, J.H.; Raja, I.S.; Kang, M.S.; Kim, B.; Hong, S.W.; Huh, J.-B.; Han, D.-W. Enhanced osseointegration of dental implants with reduced graphene oxide coating. Biomater. Res. 2022, 26, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoskins, W.T.; Bingham, R.J.; Lorimer, M.; de Steiger, R.N. The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 1074–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pap, K.; Vasarhelyi, G.; Gal, T.; Nemeth, G.; Abonyi, B.; Hangody, L.R.; Hangody, G.M.; Hangody, L. Evaluation of clinical outcomes of cemented vs uncemented knee prostheses covered with titanium plasma spray and hydroxyapatite: A minimum two years follow-up. Jt. Dis. Relat. Surg. 2018, 29, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oral, E.; Wannomae, K.K.; Rowell, S.L.; Muratoglu, O.K. Diffusion of vitamin E in ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 5225–5237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, Q.Y.; Zhang, B.F.; Wen, P.F.; Wang, J.; Hao, L.J.; Wang, T.; Cheng, H.G.; Wang, Y.K.; Guo, J.B.; Zhang, Y.M. Vitamin E-Enhanced Liners in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed. Res. Int. 2021, 6, 3236679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Witte, T.M.; Fratila-Apachitei, L.E.; Zadpoor, A.A.; Peppas, N.A. Bone tissue engineering via growth factor delivery: From scaffolds to complex matrices. Regen Biomater. 2018, 5, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Subbiah, R.; Hwang, M.P.; Van, S.Y.; Do, S.H.; Park, H.; Lee, K.; Kim, S.H.; Yun, K.; Park, K. Osteogenic/Angiogenic Dual Growth Factor Delivery Microcapsules for Regeneration of Vascularized Bone Tissue. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2015, 4, 1982–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Wang, K.; Lu, X.; Li, M.; Liu, H.; Xie, C.; Meng, F.; Jiang, O.; Li, C.; Zhi, W. BMP-2 encapsulated polysaccharide nanoparticle modified biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2015, 103A, 1520–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, K. Encapsulated stem cells for cancer therapy. Biomatter 2013, 3, e24278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hashemi, M.; Fatemeh, K. Application of encapsulation technology in stem cell therapy. Life Sci. 2015, 143, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulkarni, V.; Uttamani, J.R.; Asar, N.V.; Nares, S.; Tözüm, T.F. Evidence-Based Clinical Outcomes of Immediate and Early Loading of Short Endosseous Dental Implants: A Meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2021, 36, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czekanska, E.M.; Stoddart, M.J.; Ralphs, J.R.; Richards, R.G.; Hayes, J.S. A phenotypic comparison of osteoblast cell lines versus human primary osteoblasts for biomaterials testing. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2014, 102, 2636–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomoaia, G.; Mocanu, A.; Vida-Simiti, I.; Jumate, N.; Bobos, L.D.; Soritau, O.; Tomoaia-Cotisel, M. Silicon effect on the composition and structure of nanocalcium phosphates: In vitro biocompatibility to human osteoblasts. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2014, 37, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harawaza, K.; Roach, C.P.; Fernandez, A. Modification of the surface nanotopography of implant devices: A translational perspective. Mater. Today Biol. 2021, 12, 100152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carvalho, L.; Alberto, N.J.; Gomes, P.S.; Nogueira, R.N.; Pinto, J.N.; Fernandes, M.H. In the trail of a new bio-sensor for measuring strain in bone: Osteoblastic biocompatibility. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2011, 26, 4046–4052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nasello, G.; Alamán-Díez, P.; Schiavi, J.; Pérez, M.Á.; McNamara, L.; García-Aznar, J.M. Primary Human Osteoblasts Cultured in a 3D Microenvironment Create a Unique Representative Model of Their Differentiation Into Osteocytes. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernhardt, A.; Skottke, J.; von Witzleben, M.; Gelinsky, M. Triple Culture of Primary Human Osteoblasts, Osteoclasts and Osteocytes as an In Vitro Bone Model. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 7316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raut, H.K.; Das, R.; Liu, Z.; Liu, X.; Ramakrishna, S. Biocompatibility of Biomaterials for Tissue Regeneration or Replacement. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 15, e2000160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamers, E.; van Horssen, R.; te Riet, J.; van Delft, F.C.; Luttge, R.; Walboomers, X.F.; Jansen, J.A. The influence of nanoscale topographical cues on initial osteoblast morphology and migration. Eur. Cell Mater. 2010, 9, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- American Academy of Implant Dentistry. Glossary of implant terms. J. Oral Implantol. 1986, 12, 284–294. [Google Scholar]
- James, L. Osseointegration: Its Mechanism and Recent Updates. J. Dent Res. Pract. 2022, 4, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Golubewa, L.; Rehman, H.; Kulahava, T.; Karpicz, R.; Baah, M.; Kaplas, T.; Shah, A.; Malykhin, S.; Obraztsov, A.; Rutkauskas, D.; et al. Macro-, Micro- and Nano-Roughness of Carbon-Based Interface with the Living Cells: Towards a Versatile Bio-Sensing Platform. Sensors 2020, 20, 5028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feier, A.M.; Portan, D.; Manu, D.R.; Kostopoulos, V.; Kotrotsos, A.; Strnad, G.; Dobreanu, M.; Salcudean, A.; Bataga, T. Primary MSCs for Personalized Medicine: Ethical Challenges, Isolation and Biocompatibility Evaluation of 3D Electrospun and Printed Scaffolds. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostopoulos, V.; Kotrotsos, A.; Fouriki, K.; Kalarakis, A.; Portan, D. Fabrication and Characterization of Polyetherimide Electrospun Scaffolds Modified with Graphene Nano-Platelets and Hydroxyapatite Nano-Particles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russu, O.M.; Strnad, G.; Jakab-Farkas, L.; Cazacu, R.; Feier, A.; Gergely, I.; Trambitas, C.; Petrovan, C. Electrochemical Synthesis of Nanostructured Oxide Layers on Threaded Surfaces of Medical Implants. Rev. Chim. 2018, 69, 1636–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Liu, C.; Shen, S.G.; Wang, X.; Lin, K. The synergistic effect of 3D-printed microscale roughness surface and nanoscale feature on enhancing osteogenic differentiation and rapid osseointegration. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2021, 53, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palka, K.; Pokrowiecki, R.; Krzywicka, M. Chapter 3–Porous titanium materials and applications. In Titanium for Consumer Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 22–75. [Google Scholar]
- Feier, A.M.; Manu, D.R.; Strnad, G.; Dobreanu, M.; Russu, O.M.; Portan, D.; Bataga, T. A Step Forward Standardization of Biocompatibility Testing on Tissue Culture Polystyrene. Mater. Plast. 2018, 55, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AlOtaibi, N.M.; Dunne, M.; Ayoub, A.F.; Naudi, K.B. A novel surgical model for the preclinical assessment of the osseointegration of dental implants: A surgical protocol and pilot study results. J. Transl. Med. 2021, 19, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, D.F. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 2008, 29, 2941–2953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regulation EU. 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on Medical Devices, Amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and Repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC; OJ L 117, 5.5.2017; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; pp. 1–175.
- Przekora, A.; Kazimierczak, P.; Wojcik, M. Ex vivo determination of chitosan/curdlan/hydroxyapatite biomaterial osseointegration with the use of human trabecular bone explant: New method for biocompatibility testing of bone implants reducing animal tests. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2021, 119, 111612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dias, I.E.; Viegas, C.A.; Requicha, J.F.; Saavedra, M.J.; Azevedo, J.M.; Carvalho, P.P.; Dias, I.R. Mesenchymal Stem Cell Studies in the Goat Model for Biomedical Research—A Review of the Scientific Literature. Biology 2022, 11, 1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dias, I.R.; Camassa, J.A.; Bordelo, J.A.; Babo, P.S.; Viegas, C.A.; Dourado, N.; Reis, R.L.; Gomes, M.E. Preclinical and Translational Studies in Small Ruminants (Sheep and Goat) as Models for Osteoporosis Research. Curr. Osteoporos Rep. 2018, 16, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ribitsch, I.; Baptista, P.M.; Lange-Consiglio, A.; Melotti, L.; Patruno, M.; Jenner, F.; Schnabl-Feichter, E.; Dutton, L.C.; Connolly, D.J.; van Steenbeek, F.G.; et al. Large Animal Models in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering: To Do or Not to Do. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moran, C.J.; Ramesh, A.; Brama, P.A.J.; O’Byrne, J.M.; O’Brien, F.J.; Levingstone, T.J. The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in cartilage repair. J. Exp. Ortop. 2016, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seaton, M.; Hocking, A.; Gibran, N.S. Porcine Models of Cutaneous Wound Healing. ILAR J. 2015, 56, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Commercial Osteoblasts Lines | Primary Osteoblast Cultures | ||
---|---|---|---|
Cons | Pros | Cons | Pros |
minimal relevance in vivo | require standard culture medium | reduced contamination | thorough ethical regulations |
genomic inconsistencies | clear morphological characteristics | maintains the phenotype after passages | low availability |
general contamination | standardized ethical regulations | high relevance in vivo | require specific culture medium and specific components |
contamination with elements of various cells | high availability | genetically stable | low costs |
high costs | unlimited supply | usable in personalized medicine | lack of standard morphological characteristics |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Feier, A.M.; Pop, T.S.; Borodi, P.-G.; Zuh, S.-G.; Oprișan, A.; Russu, O.; Bațagă, T. From Basic Science to Clinical Perfection: What Defines the Orthopedic Biocompatible Implant? Surgeries 2023, 4, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries4010001
Feier AM, Pop TS, Borodi P-G, Zuh S-G, Oprișan A, Russu O, Bațagă T. From Basic Science to Clinical Perfection: What Defines the Orthopedic Biocompatible Implant? Surgeries. 2023; 4(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries4010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleFeier, Andrei Marian, Tudor Sorin Pop, Paul-Gabriel Borodi, Sándor-György Zuh, Andrei Oprișan, Octav Russu, and Tiberiu Bațagă. 2023. "From Basic Science to Clinical Perfection: What Defines the Orthopedic Biocompatible Implant?" Surgeries 4, no. 1: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries4010001