The contribution of metal allergy to the failure of metal alloy implants, with special reference to titanium: Current knowledge and controversies

Abstract

After almost three‐quarters of a century during which contact dermatologists have often struggled to comprehend the relationship between metal allergy and failure of metal‐alloy containing implant, it is possible to say that a relationship does exist, particularly for cobalt and chromium, but also for nickel. There is still debate as to whether allergy develops as a consequent of failure but thenceforth contributes to it, or whether sensitisation starts first and induces failure secondarily—opinion probably favours the first. Metal‐on‐polypropylene articulations were associated with few metal allergic problems but now are less favoured by orthopaedists due to plastic wear products causing osteolysis and pseudotumour formation through local inflammation. New metal alloys are regularly being introduced such that interested dermatologists need to stay on top of the situation. The jury is still out as to whether the recent favouring of titanium‐containing alloys will confirm them to be more inert allergenically. Case reports do show some clinical reactions to titanium‐containing implants and patch test series have inferred sometimes quite a high background rate of allergy, but interpretation must be tempered by the awareness that titanium salts on patch testing have a tendency to cause irritant reactions. Blood monitoring of metal ion values is now recommended in certain situations after joint replacement and increasing levels may be an indication that allergy with joint failure can develop, in which case patch testing is indicated, and suggested series are available. Predictive patch testing, whilst generally not recommended in the past, has been introduced into some protocols often by non‐dermatologists, such that it is now needed for temporo‐mandibular joint and Nuss bar insertion, and it can be anticipated that this may become more commonplace in the future. One of the major current deficits for patch testers is standardised guidance on which preparation or preparations to use for suspected titanium allergy. One suggestion is 0.5% titanium sulphate in petrolatum, though experience in at least one centre suggests the use of a battery of titanium salts might be desirable.

Influence of Ti Vacancy Defects on the Dissolution of O-Adsorbed Ti(0001) Surface: A First-Principles Study

“…Commercially pure titanium, denoted as α-Ti, finds extensive application in biomedicine (including orthopedic implants and dental instruments), as well as in aerospace engineering [2]. This popularity stems from its remarkable properties, including excellent fatigue strength, low density, high tensile strength, lightweight nature, exceptional biocompatibility, and outstanding resistance to corrosion [3].…”

“…Consequently, the corrosion of surgical Ti implants, a significant determinant of their service life, cannot ensure their long-term stability [4]. This corrosion process compromises the chemical and physical stability of the surface, potentially leading to various side effects [3]. For instance, Olmedo et al have demonstrated an association between per-implantitis (a site-specific infectious disease) and ion corrosion of the Ti surface [5].…”