Twenty-first century challenges for biomaterials

Abstract

During the 1960s and 1970s, a first generation of materials was specially developed for use inside the human body. These developments became the basis for the field of biomaterials. The devices made from biomaterials are called prostheses. Professor Bill Bonfield was one of the first to recognize the importance of understanding the mechanical properties of tissues, especially bone, in order to achieve reliable skeletal prostheses. His research was one of the pioneering efforts to understand the interaction of biomaterials with living tissues. The goal of all early biomaterials was to 'achieve a suitable combination of physical properties to match those of the replaced tissue with a minimal toxic response in the host'. By 1980, there were more than 50 implanted prostheses in clinical use made from 40 different materials. At that time, more than three million prosthetic parts were being implanted in patients worldwide each year. A common feature of most of the 40 materials was biological 'inertness'. Almost all materials used in the body were single-phase materials. Most implant materials were adaptations of already existing commercial materials with higher levels of purity to eliminate release of toxic by-products and minimize corrosion. This article is a tribute to Bill Bonfield's pioneering efforts in the field of bone biomechanics, biomaterials and interdisciplinary research. It is also a brief summary of the evolution of bioactive materials and the opportunities for tailoring the composition, texture and surface chemistry of them to meet five important challenges for the twenty-first century.

Reprogramming and Carcinogenesis—Parallels and Distinctions

“…The effects of different orthopedic or dental biomaterials on osteoblast function are presented in Table IV. In summary both hydroxyapatite coating and Bioglass positively affect the bone integration of implants (Hench and Thompson, 2010;Zreiqat et al, 2005).…”

“…By the 80s a shift developed, where new biomaterials were designed to interact with the surrounding cells and tissues (Hench and Wilson, 1984). This include biomaterials that mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) or release soluble factors that influence activity of the surrounding cells (Hench and Thompson, 2010;Place et al, 2009). …”

“…To improve the integration of implant into the bone, it has been attempted to alter the surface of metal biomaterials to combine the excellent mechanical features of metal biomaterials with a bioactive surface. Examples of bioactive surfaces includes hydroxy-apatite, that is the main mineral component of normal bone and Bioglass (Hench and Thompson, 2010;Zreiqat et al, 2005). Bioglass is a type of bioactive glass consisting of Na 2 O, CaO, P 2 O 5 and SiO 2 .…”

“…Surrounding osteoblasts will then integrate the newly formed Bioglass surface with the surrounding bone. Bioglass has been bound to the surface of titanium implants, where the Bioglass allows strong integration of the titanium-Bioglass implant (Hench and Thompson, 2010). The effects of different orthopedic or dental biomaterials on osteoblast function are presented in Table IV.…”

Bactericidal Activity of Copper Oxide Nanocomposite/Bioglass for in Vitro Clindamycin Release in Implant Infections Due to Staphylococcus aureus

“…Bioactive scaffolds along with osteoconductive factors (to guide the growth of new bone), induced osteogenesis (to promote new bone formation), and angiogenesis (to build blood vessels) are significant advantages for repairing serious bone defects (19,20) when compared to conventional treatments such as systematic antibiotic therapy, necrotic tissue/foreign object removal after surgery, wound drainage, and implant removal (21), which all have limitations that might lead to additional surgical intervention for patients (21,22).…”