The Effects of Biomaterial Implant Wear Debris on Osteoblasts

Abstract

Aseptic loosening subsequent to periprosthetic osteolysis is the leading cause for the revision of arthroplasty failure. The biological response of macrophages to wear debris has been well established, however, the equilibrium of bone remodeling is not only dictated by osteoclastic bone resorption but also by osteoblast-mediated bone formation. Increasing evidence shows that wear debris significantly impair osteoblastic physiology and subsequent bone formation. In the present review, we update the current state of knowledge regarding the effect of biomaterial implant wear debris on osteoblasts. The interaction of osteoblasts with osteoclasts and macrophages under wear debris challenge, and potential treatment options targeting osteoblasts are also presented.

Lonafarnib Inhibits Farnesyltransferase via Suppressing ERK Signaling Pathway to Prevent Osteoclastogenesis in Titanium Particle-Induced Osteolysis

“…However, AL accompanied by PPOL is one of the main factors that resulted in TJA failure ( Abu-Amer et al, 2007 ). The mechanism of wear particle-induced periprosthetic osteolysis has not been fully understood to date, osteoclast-mediated bone resorption has been identified as the primary driver for this process ( Masui et al, 2005 ; Goodman and Gallo, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ). Suppression of osteoclastic activation is a key to preventing wear-particles induced PPOL ( Goodman and Gallo, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ).…”

“…It is estimated that 55% of hip ( Sadoghi et al, 2013 ) and 31% of knee ( Sharkey et al, 2014 ) revisions are caused by AL accompanied by PPOL. Wear particles after TJA, such as polyethylene, titanium, and polymethyl methacrylate, can attract the recruitment of macrophages along with other cells, which produce chemokines, cytokines, and other pro-inflammatory components that sustain chronic inflammation, inducing osteoclastic differentiation and bone resorption ( Goodman and Gallo, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ). Furthermore, it’s reported that these factors have been investigated under the periprosthetic milieu ( Masui et al, 2005 ).…”

Spectrometric Analysis of the Wear from Metallic and Ceramic Dental Implants following Insertion: An In Vitro Study

“…The characterization of implant surface changes can help to clarify the mechanisms and dynamics behind the elution of Ti in the body, which remains unclear at the time of writing, in order to further explain the potential mechanisms of dental implant degradation and their relation to peri-implant diseases [ 31 ]. The rationale is that leached particles can be phagocytosed by macrophages and release mediators of inflammation, which can potentially inhibit osteoblast formation, leading to bone resorption and, ultimately, the clinical loosening of implants [ 32 , 33 , 34 ].…”

Effect of Implant Surface Roughness and Macro- and Micro-Structural Composition on Wear and Metal Particles Released

“…On the contrary, implant D showed a surface contamination with the presence of alumina particles (Figure 8), the latter being residues from the sandblasting finishing step. Its diffusion in the peri-implant bone surface may produce biological perturbations such as the inhibition of bone mineralization, the activation of osteoclast-like cells, and the enhancement of the bone erosion [52,53]. Bertoldi et al evidenced the association between the Al wear particles with oxidative and inflammatory reactions, including iron-mediated oxidation [54].…”