Abstract:Ceramic materials are made of an inorganic non-metallic oxide. Usually ceramics are divided into two groups: silicon ceramics and aluminous ceramics. Ceramics are also divided into crystalline and non-crystalline depending on inner molecular organization. Depending on their in vivo behaviour, ceramics are classified as bioresorbable, bioreactive or bioinert. Alumina and zirconia are bioinert ceramics; their low reactivity togheter with their good mechanical features (low wear and high stability) led to use the… Show more
“…An Ames test and carcinogenic/mutagenic tests conducted on alumina and zirconia ceramics conrmed that these materials did not elicit any in vitro carcinogenic effects. 77 However, in one particular study, the subcutaneous implantation of solid and porous disks of alumina in a rat induced sarcoma at an incident rate of #25%, which was signicantly lower than the tumor incident rates reported in the literature for metals and medical-grade plastics. However, the same tests with ceramic particles did not produce any risk of neoplasms.…”
With the progress in modern technological research, novel biomaterials are being largely developed for various biomedical applications. Over the past two decades, most of the research focuses on the development of a new generation of bioceramics as substitutes for hard tissue replacement. In reference to their application in different anatomical locations of a patient, newly developed bioceramic materials can potentially induce a toxic/harmful effect to the host tissues. Therefore, prior to clinical testing, relevant biochemical screening assays are to be performed at the cellular and molecular level, to address the issues of biocompatibility and long term performance of the implants. Along with testing strategies in the bulk material toxicity, a detailed evaluation should also be conducted to determine the toxicity of the wear products of the potential bioceramics. This is important as the bioceramics are intended to be implanted in patients with longer life expectancy and notwithstanding, the material will eventually release finer (mostly nanosized) sized debris particles due to continuous wear at articulating surfaces in the hostile corrosive environment of the human body. The wear particulates generated from a biocompatible bioceramic may act in a different way, inducing early/late aseptic loosening at the implant site, resulting in osteolysis and inflammation. Hence, a study on the chronic effects of the wear particulates, in terms of local and systemic toxicity becomes the major criteria in the toxicity evaluation of implantable bioceramics. In this broad perspective, this article summarizes some of the currently used techniques and knowledge in assessing the in vitro and in vivo cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of bioceramic implant materials. It also addresses the need to conduct a broad evaluation before claiming the biocompatibility and clinical feasibility of any new biomaterial. This review also emphasizes some of the case studies based on the experimental designs that are currently followed and its importance in the context of clinical applications.
“…An Ames test and carcinogenic/mutagenic tests conducted on alumina and zirconia ceramics conrmed that these materials did not elicit any in vitro carcinogenic effects. 77 However, in one particular study, the subcutaneous implantation of solid and porous disks of alumina in a rat induced sarcoma at an incident rate of #25%, which was signicantly lower than the tumor incident rates reported in the literature for metals and medical-grade plastics. However, the same tests with ceramic particles did not produce any risk of neoplasms.…”
With the progress in modern technological research, novel biomaterials are being largely developed for various biomedical applications. Over the past two decades, most of the research focuses on the development of a new generation of bioceramics as substitutes for hard tissue replacement. In reference to their application in different anatomical locations of a patient, newly developed bioceramic materials can potentially induce a toxic/harmful effect to the host tissues. Therefore, prior to clinical testing, relevant biochemical screening assays are to be performed at the cellular and molecular level, to address the issues of biocompatibility and long term performance of the implants. Along with testing strategies in the bulk material toxicity, a detailed evaluation should also be conducted to determine the toxicity of the wear products of the potential bioceramics. This is important as the bioceramics are intended to be implanted in patients with longer life expectancy and notwithstanding, the material will eventually release finer (mostly nanosized) sized debris particles due to continuous wear at articulating surfaces in the hostile corrosive environment of the human body. The wear particulates generated from a biocompatible bioceramic may act in a different way, inducing early/late aseptic loosening at the implant site, resulting in osteolysis and inflammation. Hence, a study on the chronic effects of the wear particulates, in terms of local and systemic toxicity becomes the major criteria in the toxicity evaluation of implantable bioceramics. In this broad perspective, this article summarizes some of the currently used techniques and knowledge in assessing the in vitro and in vivo cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of bioceramic implant materials. It also addresses the need to conduct a broad evaluation before claiming the biocompatibility and clinical feasibility of any new biomaterial. This review also emphasizes some of the case studies based on the experimental designs that are currently followed and its importance in the context of clinical applications.
“…Bioinert ceramics, such as Al 2 O 3 and Yttria‐Stabilized ZrO 2 (hereafter labeled as Y‐TZP), are characterized by high strength, hardness and wear resistance, but they are nearly inert, meaning that they show a negligible interaction with the surrounding living tissues . They are mainly used for high load‐bearing applications, such as hip prostheses for orthopedics and dental implants and restorations .…”
Section: Compositional Graded Ceramics For Biomedical Applicationsmentioning
Functionally Graded Materials (FGMs) represent a novel approach for the realization of innovative properties and/or functions that conventional homogeneous materials cannot accomplish. In conventional materials, in fact, the composition or the structure is uniform over the volume; on the opposite, in FGMs such features gradually change from layer to layer, with the aim of realizing a gradation of properties over the volume and performing a set of specified functions. Among FGMs, special attention is given today to Functionally Graded Ceramics (FGCs), designed and developed to withstand a variety of severe operative conditions, including high temperatures, corrosive environments, abrasion, mechanical, and thermal induced stresses. An important application field of FGCs is for medical prosthetic devices and artificial tissues, taking inspiration from the several examples of living tissues with graded structures. After an introduction on the rationale for using FGCs in the biomedical field, the 3 main types of graded materials developed today (eg, composition, porosity and microstructural graded ceramics) are here reviewed, highlighting the most innovative technologies used to develop them, their potentials and challenging features in comparison with the monolithic counterparts.
K E Y W O R D S
“…The use of ceramic heads in total hip arthroplasty is constantly increasing due to their good wear characteristics, biocompatibility and reduction of fretting corrosion risk [1,2]. They are used especially in young patients and clinical results are very good [3].…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.