To investigate the bone response to threaded polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants coated with nanohydroxyapatite.
Materials and methods
A total of 39 PEEK implants were coated with nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite and 39 uncoated implants were used as controls. The implant surface was characterized by optical interferometry and scanning electron microscope. The implants were inserted in the tibia and femur of 13 rabbits. After 6 weeks of healing, quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.
Results
The test implants showed significantly higher removal torque test values compared with the control group. Histomorphometric evaluation demonstrated higher bone-to-implant contact for the test implants; however, there were no differences in bone area between the groups. Qualitative histological analyses demonstrated inflammatory cellular reactions in close vicinity of both implant surfaces. A two-cell layer of foreign body giant cells was observed irrespective of sample type.
Conclusion
Our findings demonstrate that implants with a threaded design render good stability to PEEK in both coated and uncoated implants. Nanohydroxyapatite-coated PEEK implants demonstrated improved bone formation compared with uncoated controls.
KurtzSMDevineJN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials2007; 28: 4845–4869.
2.
WilliamsDFMcNamaraATurnerRM. Potential of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon-fibre-reinforced PEEK in medical applications. J Mater Sci Lett1987; 6: 188–190.
3.
SkinnerHB. Composite technology for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1988; 235: 224–236.
4.
ChoDYLiauWRLeeWY. Preliminary experience using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery2002; 51: 1343–1349. discussion 9–50.
5.
KatzerAMarquardtHWestendorfJ. Polyetheretherketone–cytotoxicity and mutagenicity in vitro. Biomaterials2002; 23: 1749–1759.
6.
MorrisonCMacnairRMacDonaldC. In vitro biocompatibility testing of polymers for orthopaedic implants using cultured fibroblasts and osteoblasts. Biomaterials1995; 16: 987–992.
7.
RivardCHRhalmiSCoillardC. In vivo biocompatibility testing of peek polymer for a spinal implant system: A study in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res2002; 62: 488–498.
8.
TothJMWangMEstesBT. Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials2006; 27: 324–334.
9.
Abu BakarMSChengMHTangSM. Tensile properties, tension-tension fatigue and biological response of polyetheretherketone-hydroxyapatite composites for load-bearing orthopedic implants. Biomaterials2003; 24: 2245–2250.
10.
HaSWMayerJKochB. Plasma-sprayed hydroxylapatite coating on carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastic composite materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med1994; 5: 481–484.
11.
AltankovGGrinnellFGrothT. Studies on the biocompatibility of materials: Fibroblast reorganization of substratum-bound fibronectin on surfaces varying in wettability. J Biomed Mater Res1996; 30: 385–391.
12.
GarciaAJKeselowskyBG. Biomimetic surfaces for control of cell adhesion to facilitate bone formation. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr2002; 12: 151–162.
13.
LimJYShaughnessyMCZhouZ. Surface energy effects on osteoblast spatial growth and mineralization. Biomaterials2008; 29: 1776–1784.
14.
PoulssonAHMitchellSADavidsonMR. Attachment of human primary osteoblast cells to modified polyethylene surfaces. Langmuir2009; 25: 3718–3727.
15.
HaSWKirchMBirchlerF. Surface activation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and formation of calcium phosphate coatings by precipitation. J Mater Sci Mater Med1997; 8: 683–690.
16.
WuGMHsiaoWDKungSF. Investigation of hydroxyapatite coated polyether ether ketone composites by gas plasma sprays. Surf Coat Technol2009; 203: 2755–2758.
17.
LeeJHJangHLLeeKM. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the bioactivity of hydroxyapatite-coated polyetheretherketone biocomposites created by cold spray technology. Acta Biomater2013; 9: 6177–6187.
18.
RabieiASandukasS. Processing and evaluation of bioactive coatings on polymeric implants. J Biomed Mater Res A2013; 101A: 2621–2629.
19.
ElliesLGCarterJMNatiellaJR. Quantitative analysis of early in vivo tissue response to synthetic apatite implants. J Biomed Mater Res1988; 22: 137–148.
20.
GottlanderMAlbrektssonTCarlssonLV. A histomorphometric study of unthreaded hydroxyapatite-coated and titanium-coated implants in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1992; 7: 485–490.
HanCMLeeEJKimHE. The electron beam deposition of titanium on polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and the resulting enhanced biological properties. Biomaterials2010; 31: 3465–3470.
23.
BarkarmoSWennerbergAHoffmanM. Nano-hydroxyapatite-coated PEEK implants: A pilot study in rabbit bone. J Biomed Mater Res A2013; 101: 465–471.
24.
AlbrektssonT. Hydroxyapatite-coated implants: A case against their use. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1998; 56: 1312–1326.
25.
RokkumMReigstadAJohanssonCB. HA particles can be released from well-fixed HA-coated stems: Histopathology of biopsies from 20 hips 2-8 years after implantation. Acta Orthop Scand2002; 73: 298–306.
26.
MeirellesLArvidssonAAnderssonM. Nano hydroxyapatite structures influence early bone formation. J Biomed Mater Res A2008; 87: 299–307.
27.
SvanborgLMHoffmanMAnderssonM. The effect of hydroxyapatite nanocrystals on early bone formation surrounding dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2011; 40: 308–315.
WennerbergAAlbrektssonT. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res2009; 20(Suppl 4): 172–184.
30.
MendesVCMoineddinRDaviesJE. The effect of discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystals on bone-bonding to titanium surfaces. Biomaterials2007; 28: 4748–4755.
31.
ErgunCLiuHWebsterTJ. Increased osteoblast adhesion on nanoparticulate calcium phosphates with higher Ca/P ratios. J Biomed Mater Res A2008; 85: 236–241.
32.
GittensRAMcLachlanTOlivares-NavarreteR. The effects of combined micron-/submicron-scale surface roughness and nanoscale features on cell proliferation and differentiation. Biomaterials2011; 32: 3395–3403.
33.
WennerbergAAlbrektssonT. Structural influence from calcium phosphate coatings and its possible effect on enhanced bone integration. Acta Odontol Scand2009; 67: 333–340.
34.
JimboRSotresJJohanssonC. The biological response to three different nanostructures applied on smooth implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res2012; 23: 706–712.
35.
IvanoffCJSennerbyLLekholmU. Influence of initial implant mobility on the integration of titanium implants. An experimental study in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res1996; 7: 120–127.
36.
AlbrektssonTBranemarkPIHanssonHA. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand1981; 52: 155–170.
37.
Kjellin P and Andersson M. SE-0401524-4, assignee. Synthetic nano-sized crystalline calcium phosphate and method of production patent SE527610. 2006.
38.
HeWKjellinPCurrieF. Formation of bone-like nanocrystalline apatite using self-assembled liquid crystals. Chem Mater2011; 24: 892–902.
39.
Andersson M, Currie F and Kjellin P. Methods and systems of controlled coating of nanoparticles onto micro-rough implant surfaces and associated implants. Google Patents, 2010.
40.
WennerbergAAlbrektssonT. Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2000; 15: 331–344.
41.
DonathK. Die trenn-dünnschliff-technik zur herstellung histologischer präparate von nicht schneidbaren geweben und materialien. Der Präparator1988; 34: 197–206.
42.
JohanssonCBMorbergP. Importance of ground section thickness for reliable histomorphometrical results. Biomaterials1995; 16: 91–95.
43.
Sarve H, Johansson CB, Lindblad J, et al. Quantification of bone remodeling in the proximity of implants. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Computer analysis of images and patterns. Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag, 2007, pp. 253–260.
44.
DucheynePQiuQ. Bioactive ceramics: The effect of surface reactivity on bone formation and bone cell function. Biomaterials1999; 20: 2287–2303.
45.
SuskaFOmarOEmanuelssonL. Enhancement of CRF-PEEK osseointegration by plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite: A rabbit model. J Biomater Appl2014.
46.
ZhuXEiblOScheidelerL. Characterization of nano hydroxyapatite/collagen surfaces and cellular behaviors. J Biomed Mater Res A2006; 79: 114–127.
47.
Johansson CB. On tissue reactions to metal implants. Goteborgs Universitet, Sweden, 1991, p. 125.
48.
DonathKLaassMGunzlHJ. The histopathology of different foreign-body reactions in oral soft tissue and bone tissue. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol1992; 420: 131–137.
49.
BolindPKJohanssonCBBeckerW. A descriptive study on retrieved non-threaded and threaded implant designs. Clin Oral Implants Res2005; 16: 447–455.
50.
CarlssonLRegnerLJohanssonC. Bone response to hydroxyapatite-coated and commercially pure titanium implants in the human arthritic knee. J Orthop Res1994; 12: 274–285.
AndersonJMDefifeKMcNallyA. Monocyte, macrophage and foreign body giant cell interactions with molecularly engineered surfaces. J Mater Sci Mater Med1999; 10: 579–588.
53.
AndersonJMRodriguezAChangDT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol2008; 20: 86–100.
