Reaction of bone nanostructure to a biodegrading Magnesium WZ21 implant – A scanning small-angle X-ray scattering time study

Grünewald, Tilman A.; Ogier, Agathe; Akbarzadeh, Johanna; Meischel, Martin; Peterlik, Herwig; Stanzl-Tschegg, Stefanie E.; Löffler, Jörg F.; Weinberg, Annelie M.; Lichtenegger, Helga C.

doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2015.11.049

Cited by 33 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scanning synchrotron x-ray scattering (SAXS) can provide an answer to this question. 73 In the case where the implant is set transcortical in bone, as expected, no load-dependent orientation of the bone crystallites is seen. Instead, the crystallites orient preferably parallel to the implant surface, which might be caused directly by the formation of HA crystallites during the degradation process.…”

Section: In Vivo Studies Of the Degradation Layer Between Materials Ansupporting

confidence: 62%

The Interface Between Degradable Mg and Tissue

Willumeit‐Römer

2019

JOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnesium (Mg) and its alloys degrade under physiological conditions, which makes them interesting implant materials, especially for osteosynthesis and cardiovascular applications. However, how strong is the connection between the implant, the degradation layer, and the surrounding tissue, namely bone? Considering that microscopically the interface can be separated into the border between the metal and the degradation layer, the degradation layer itself, and the border between the degradation layer and the biological environment, it is not obvious that this zone with total thickness of several tens of microns is sufficient to keep an implant in place. However, biomechanical approaches such as push-out tests have shown that a degraded Mg pin is surprisingly well connected with the bone irrespective of the fragile appearance of the degradation layer. This paper provides an overview of what is known about the interface between degrading Mg implants, cells, and bone tissue.

show abstract

Section: In Vivo Studies Of the Degradation Layer Between Materials Ansupporting

confidence: 62%

The Interface Between Degradable Mg and Tissue

Willumeit‐Römer

2019

JOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At higher resolution, the direction of individual collagen bundles can be investigated [ 63 , 64 ] however in smaller sample volumes of a few hundreds of micrometers. 2D sSAXS has been applied to characterize bone healing around degradable metal implants [ 65 , 66 ]. By ptychographic tomography, the osteocyte canaliculi network could be resolved in very small samples in the range of tens of micrometers [ 67 ].…”

Section: Successive Analytical Approach and Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multiscale analytical approach to evaluate osseointegration

Palmquist

2018

J Mater Sci: Mater Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osseointegrated implants are frequently used in reconstructive surgery, both in the dental and orthopedic field, restoring physical function and improving the quality of life for the patients. The bone anchorage is typically evaluated at micrometer resolution, while bone tissue is a dynamic composite material composed of nanoscale collagen fibrils and apatite crystals, with defined hierarchical levels at different length scales. In order to understand the bone formation and the ultrastructure of the interfacial tissue, analytical strategies needs to be implemented enabling multiscale and multimodal analyses of the intact interface. This paper describes a sample preparation route for successive analyses allowing assessment of the different hierarchical levels of interest, going from macro to nano scale and could be implemented on single samples. Examples of resulting analyses of different techniques on one type of implant surface is given, with emphasis on correlating the length scale between the different techniques. The bone-implant interface shows an intimate contact between mineralized collagen bundles and the outermost surface of the oxide layer, while bone mineral is found in the nanoscale surface features creating a functionally graded interface. Osteocytes exhibit a direct contact with the implant surface via canaliculi that house their dendritic processes. Blood vessels are frequently found in close proximity to the implant surface either within the mineralized bone matrix or at regions of remodeling.

show abstract

“…Together, this motivates the investigation of how crystal thicknesses evolve and are arranged close to an implant, in order to understand the biomechanical properties of the bone-implant interface. Earlier studies have shown that peri-implant bone nanostructure is affected by the presence of ceramic and metallic implants [16,31] and evolves close to resorbable materials during degradation [27,[32][33][34]. However, the spatial evolution of crystal thicknesses in newly formed bone at the interface remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio-temporal evolution of hydroxyapatite crystal thickness at the bone-implant interface

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A better understanding of bone nanostructure around the bone-implant interface is essential to improve longevity of clinical implants and decrease failure risks. This study investigates the spatiotemporal evolution of mineral crystal thickness and plate orientation in newly formed bone around the surface of a metallic implant. Standardized coin-shaped titanium implants designed with a bone chamber were inserted into rabbit tibiae for 7 and 13 weeks. Scanning measurements with microfocused small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) were carried out on newly formed bone close to the implant and in control mature cortical bone. Mineral crystals were thinner close to the implant (1.8 ± 0.45 nm at 7 weeks and 2.4 ± 0.57 nm at 13 weeks) than in the control mature bone tissue (2.5 ± 0.21 nm at 7 weeks and 2.8 ± 0.35 nm at 13 weeks), with increasing thickness over healing time (+30 % in 6 weeks). These results are explained by younger bone close to the implant, which matures during osseointegration. Thinner mineral crystals parallel to the implant surface within the first 100 µm close to the implant indicate that the implant affects bone ultrastructure close to the implant, potentially due to heterogeneous interfacial stresses, and suggest a longer maturation process of bone tissue and difficulty in binding to the metal. The bone growth kinetics within the bone chamber was derived from the spatio-temporal evolution of bone tissue's nanostructure, coupled with microtomographic imaging. The findings indicate that understanding mineral crystal thickness or plate orientation can improve our knowledge of osseointegration.

show abstract

Reaction of bone nanostructure to a biodegrading Magnesium WZ21 implant – A scanning small-angle X-ray scattering time study

Cited by 33 publications

References 35 publications

The Interface Between Degradable Mg and Tissue

The Interface Between Degradable Mg and Tissue

A multiscale analytical approach to evaluate osseointegration

Spatio-temporal evolution of hydroxyapatite crystal thickness at the bone-implant interface

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About