Bone tissue responses to glass fiber‐reinforced composite implants – a histomorphometric study

Ballo, Ahmed; Akça, Ahmet; Özen, Tuncer; Lassila, Lippo; Vallittu, Pekka K.; Närhi, Timo

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01700.x

Cited by 47 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cell culture study by fibroblasts with silanized E-glass fibers without the resin matrix has shown no signs of cytotoxicity, as it has been also demonstrated with fibroblasts by agar diffusion cytotoxicity test and animal experiments [30,[56][57][58][59][60][61][62]. In the form of FRC implant, glass fibers are covered by the thermoset polymer matrix and the only areas where the glass fibers are exposed are located at the margins of the implant which have been finished mechanically or by laser ablation.…”

Section: Biocompatibility Of Frc Materialsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…By using osteoblasts on the cell culture model with FRC implants, no signs of toxic reactions of the material were found. For instance, when bone marrow-derived osteoblast-like cells were harvested and cultured on the FRC material plates and on commercially pure titanium plates and cell growth and differentiation kinetics were investigated, similar alkaline phosphatase activities on both FRC and titanium were observed [62,63]. Expression of osteoblastic markers of osteocalcin and bone sialoprotein indicated that the fastest osteogenic differentiation took place on FRC after 7 days.…”

Section: Biocompatibility Of Frc Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies have also shown FRC-BG implant's biocompatibility in bone to be comparable to that of titanium. Addition of BG to the implant surface increased contact of bone to the implant and bone maturation [61][62][63].…”

Section: Biocompatibility Of Frc Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many of the FRC material studies, there have been additional BG (S53P4) particles on the surface of the FRC implant [24,25,62,63]. BGs are synthetic resorbable, biocompatible, osteoconductive-osteoinductive bone substitutes, and some compositions of BGs have clinically been used because of bonebonding capacity, antibacterial and angiogenesispromoting properties [64][65][66][67][68][69].…”

Section: Biocompatibility Of Frc Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To reach these mechanical properties, FRC material consisting of high-aspect ratio reinforcing fibers and polymer material were used. Presently, the most commonly used reinforcing fibers in medical and dental field are made of glass of various compositions [29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Glass fibers of diameter 15-17 micrometers are used in implants as continuous fibers which have been woven to textile form. Woven fibers (i.e., bidirectional continuous fiber system) of the FRC material divide the reinforcing effect into the two directions, which are the directions of the fibers.…”

Section: Implant Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Bioactive glass-containing cranial implants: an overview

Vallittu

2017

J Mater Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although metals have successfully been used as implants for decades, devices made out of metals do not meet all clinical requirements. For example, metal objects may interfere with some medical imaging systems (computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging), while their stiffness also differs from natural bone and may cause stress-shielding and over-loading of bone. There has been a lot of development in the field of composite biomaterial research, which has focused to a large extent on biodegradable composites. This overview article reviews the rationale of using glass fiber-reinforced composite-bioactive glass (FRC-BG) in cranial implants. For this overview, published scientific articles with the search term ''bioactive glass cranial implant'' were collected for having basis to introduce a novel design of composite implant, which contains bioactive glass. Additional scientific information was based on articles in the fields of chemistry, engineering sciences and dentistry. Published articles of the material properties, biocompatibility and possibility to add bioactive glass to the FRC-BG implants alongside with the clinical experience as far suggest that there is a clinical need for bioactive nonmetallic implants. In the FRC-BG implants, biostable glass fibers are responsible for the load-bearing capacity of the implant, while the dissolution of the bioactive glass particles supports osteogenesis and vascularization and provides antimicrobial properties for the implant. Material combination of FRC-BG has been used clinically in cranioplasty and cranio-maxillo-facial implants, and they have been investigated also as oral and orthopedic implants. Material combination of FRC-BG has successfully been introduced to be a potential implant material in cranial surgery.

show abstract

Section: Biocompatibility Of Frc Materialsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Biocompatibility Of Frc Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biocompatibility Of Frc Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biocompatibility Of Frc Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implant Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bioactive glass-containing cranial implants: an overview

Vallittu

2017

J Mater Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Craniofacial bone reconstruction with bioactive fiber-reinforced composite implant

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly‐ether‐ether‐ketone dental implants

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) polymer is of great interest as an alternative to titanium in orthopedics because of its biocompatibility and low elastic modulus. This study evaluated the fatigue limits of PEEK and the effects of the low elastic modulus PEEK in relation to existing dental implants. Compressive loading tests were performed with glass fiber-reinforced PEEK (GFR-PEEK), carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK (CFR-PEEK), and titanium rods. Among these tests, GFR-PEEK fatigue tests were performed according to ISO 14801. For the finite element analysis, three-dimensional models of dental implants and bone were constructed. The implants in the test groups were coated with a 0.5-mm thick and 5-mm long PEEK layer on the upper intrabony area. The strain energy densities (SED) were calculated, and the bone resorption was predicted. The fatigue limits of GFR-PEEK were 310 N and were higher than the static compressive strength of GFR-PEEK. The bone around PEEK-coated implants showed higher levels of SED than the bone in direct contact with the implants, and the wider diameter and stiffer implants showed lower levels of SED. The compressive strength of the GFR-PEEK and CFR-PEEK implants ranged within the bite force of the anterior and posterior dentitions, respectively, and the PEEK implants showed adequate fatigue limits for replacing the anterior teeth. Dental implants with PEEK coatings and PEEK implants may reduce stress shielding effects. Dental implant application of PEEK polymer-fatigue limit and stress shielding.

show abstract

Bone tissue responses to glass fiber‐reinforced composite implants – a histomorphometric study

Abstract: Our results suggest that the FRC implant is biocompatible in bone. The biological behavior of FRC was comparable to that of Ti after 4 and 12 weeks of implantation. Furthermore, the addition of BAG to the FRC implant increased peri-implant osteogenesis and bone maturation.

Cited by 47 publications

References 33 publications

Bioactive glass-containing cranial implants: an overview

Bioactive glass-containing cranial implants: an overview

Craniofacial bone reconstruction with bioactive fiber-reinforced composite implant

Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly‐ether‐ether‐ketone dental implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About