Prepolymerizedvs. in situ-polymerized Fiber-reinforced Composite Implants – a Pilot Study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate bone response to bioactive fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) implants under two polymerization conditions. Glass-fiber-dimethacrylate composite was tested as prepolymerized cylinder-shaped FRC implants and as cylindrical FRC implants polymerized in situ with blue light transmitted and scattered by the glass fibers. Ten FRC implants (6 prepolymerized and 4 in situ-polymerized implants) were placed in the right tibias of 3 pigs by means of a press-fit technique. After 12 weeks, light microscopy revealed only mild foreign-body reaction, with no accumulation of inflammatory cells on both the prepolymerized and the in situ-polymerized implants. The prepolymerized implants appeared to be fully integrated, whereas the in situ-polymerized implants were almost completely surrounded by a fibrous capsule. The present study suggests that in situ polymerization of FRC implants results in fibrous capsule formation and prevents integration with bone.

Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK Optima—A composite material biomechanical properties and wear/debris characteristics of CF-PEEK composites for orthopedic trauma implants

“…The use of the composites for total joint replacement, however, currently has more drawbacks than advantages due to a high failure rate (Adam et al, 2002;Akhavan et al, 2006;Jakim et al, 1983;Morscher and Dick, 1983). We can assume that the high rate of joint replacement failure can be explained by a fibrous capsule formation around FRC implants that prevents their integration to bone (Ballo et al 2010). The first composite plates were made of thermosetting polymers, such as plastic or epoxy that had the disadvantage of the inability to be contoured according to bony anatomy, a property that was preserved by the use of thermoplastic polymeric plates.…”

Bioactive glass-containing cranial implants: an overview

“…Use of epoxy polymer has been criticized due to potential toxic and allergic effects of its monomers, which are present as residuals in the FRC [46,47,52]. On the other hand, thermoset polymers made of dimethacrylate monomer systems of BisGMA have shown good biocompatibility after careful polymerization before insertion of the material to tissues [53,54] However, when the BisGMA monomers are allowed to polymerize in situ, for example, as bone cement, the biocompatibility of the cement has been questioned [55,56].…”

“…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.…”

Osseointegration of fiber-reinforced composite implants: Histological and ultrastructural observations

“…The bulk and surface properties of FRC implant materials have been characterized [19][20][21][22][23] and evaluated in biological environments [16,[24][25][26][27]. FRCs have been found to be durable materials, whose strength and elasticity are well adapted to the physiological requirements of bone [21][22][23].…”

“…Neither grit-blasted FRC implants nor FRC-BAG implants revealed toxicity in the pig bone tissue during the 12-week healing period. The establishment of strong bone contact with the FRC implant surface indicates that the material is biocompatible in the bone environment [25,26]. However, the quality and quantity of new bone formation on the FRC implant compared to titanium is not known.…”