The bulk metallic glass (BMG), Pd79Ag3.5P6Si9.5Ge2, has a high fracture toughness and has been found to accommodate post-yield stress, unlike most other BMG. Moreover, due to its greater noble gas composition it has a intrinsic corrosion resistance, ideal for dental and orthopedic implants.
OBJECTIVE:
This present study aimed to evaluate the in vivo application of Pd79Ag3.5P6Si9.5Ge2 in a large translational sheep model to assess its efficacy to be utilized as an endosteal device.
METHODS:
Twelve implants in the form of cylindrical rods (3 mm in diameter) were produced through rapid quenching. Each sheep (n = 12) received one osteotomy in the mandibular region using rotary instrumentation, which was filled with Pd79Ag3.5P6Si9.5Ge2. After 6- and 24-weeks the animals were euthanized, and samples collected en bloc to conduct histomorphometric analysis. The degree of osseointegration were assessed through bone-to-implant contact (BIC).
RESULTS:
All samples revealed favorable BIC along with with fibrous connective tissue layers at both 6- and 24-weeks. Bone along with interfacial remodeling was observed in proximity with the metallic glass surface at 6 weeks with higher degrees of bone organization being observed at the later healing time, 24 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS:
The synthesized BMG, given its unique combination of toughness and strength, revealed potential to serve as an alternative to commonly used Ti alloys.
VandewegheS.LeconteC.OnoD.CoelhoP.G. and JimboR., Comparison of histological and three-dimensional characteristics of porous titanium granules and deproteinized bovine particulate grafts used for sinus floor augmentation in humans: A pilot study, Implant Dent22(4) (2013), 339–343.
2.
ShahF.A.TrobosM.ThomsenP. and PalmquistA., Commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) versus titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) materials as bone anchored implants - Is one truly better than the other?Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl62 (2016), 960–966.
3.
NimigeanV.PharmacyB.PollA.MinculescuC.A.MoraruS.VÓrlanM., Immunohistochemical evaluation of autogenous mandibular bone grafts integration: An experimental study, Rom Biotechnol Lett24 (2019), 229–235.
4.
CoelhoP.G.GiroG.TeixeiraH.S.MarinC.WitekL.ThompsonV.P., Argon-based atmospheric pressure plasma enhances early bone response to rough titanium surfaces, J Biomed Mater Res A100(7) (2012), 1901–1906.
5.
ShahR.PenmetsaD.S.L.ThomasR. and MehtaD.S., Titanium corrosion: Implications for dental implants, Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent24(4) (2016), 171–180.
6.
SouzaJ.C.M.Apaza-BedoyaK.BenfattiC.A.M.SilvaF.S. and HenriquesB., A comprehensive review on the corrosion pathways of titanium dental implants and their biological adverse effects, Metals10(9) (2020).
7.
WiestA.WangG.HuangL.RobertsS.DemetriouM.D.LiawP.K., Corrosion and corrosion fatigue of Vitreloy glasses containing low fractions of late transition metals, Scr Mater62(8) (2010), 540–543.
8.
DemetriouM.D.WiestA.HofmannD.C.JohnsonW.L.HanB.WolfsonN., Amorphous metals for hard-tissue prosthesis, JOM62(2) (2010), 83–91.
9.
DemetriouM.D.LauneyM.E.GarrettG.SchrammJ.P.HofmannD.C.JohnsonW.L., A damage-tolerant glass, Nat Mater10(2) (2011), 123–128.
10.
RitchieR.O., The conflicts between strength and toughness, Nat Mater10(11) (2011), 817–822.
11.
SartorettoS.C.UzedaM.J.MiguelF.B.NascimentoJ.R.AscoliF. and Calasans-MaiaM.D., Sheep as an experimental model for biomaterial implant evaluation, Acta Ortop Bras24(5) (2016), 262–266.
12.
LahensB.LopezC.D.NeivaR.F.BowersM.M.JimboR.BonfanteE.A., The effect of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implants with different surface treatments: A study in sheep, J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater107(3) (2019), 615–623.
13.
LahensB.NeivaR.TovarN.AlifaragA.M.JimboR.BonfanteE.A., Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep, J Mech Behav Biomed Mater63 (2016), 56–65.
14.
OliveiraP.G.F.P.d.BergamoE.T.P.NeivaR.BonfanteE.A.WitekL.TovarN., Osseodensification outperforms conventional implant subtractive instrumentation: A study in sheep, Mater Sci Eng C90 (2018), 300–307.
15.
CoelhoP.G. and JimboR., Osseointegration of metallic devices: Current trends based on implant hardware design, Arch Biochem Biophys561 (2014), 99–108.
16.
SpectorM., 4.401 - The concept of biocompatibility, in: Comprehensive BiomaterialsDucheyneP. (ed.), Elsevier, Oxford, 2011, pp. 1–6.
17.
AndersenP.J., 1.102 - Metals for use in medicine, in: Comprehensive BiomaterialsDucheyneP. (ed.), Elsevier, Oxford, 2011, pp. 5–20.
18.
QuinnR.K. and ArmstrongN.R., Electrochemical and surface analytical characterization of titanium and titanium hydride thin film electrode oxidation, J Electrochem Society125(11) (1978), 1790–1796.
19.
RhoJ.Y.AshmanR.B. and TurnerC.H., Young’s modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements, J Biomech26(2) (1993), 111–119.
20.
EnghC.A.BobynJ.D. and GlassmanA.H., Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results, J Bone Joint Surg Br69(1) (1987), 45–55.
21.
KurodaD.NiinomiM.MorinagaM.KatoY. and YashiroT., Design and mechanical properties of new 𝛽 type titanium alloys for implant materials, Mater Sci Eng A243(1) (1998), 244–249.
22.
OmiyaM.UedaK. and NarushimaT., Microstructure and mechanical properties of an 𝛼 + 𝛽 type Ti-4V-0.6O alloy, Mater Trans58(9) (2017), 1250–1256.
23.
Enhancement of bone implants by substituting nitinol for titanium (Ti-6Al-4V): A modeling comparison, in: ASME 2014 Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent SystemsMoghaddamN.S.ElahiniaM.MillerM. and DeanD. (eds), 2014, p. V001T03A031.
24.
BuckwalterJ.A.EinhornT.A. and SimonS.R., Orthopaedic Basic Science: Biology and Biomechanics of the Musculoskeletal System, 2nd ed edn, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont (IL), 2000.
25.
GludovatzB.DemetriouM.D.FloydM.HohenwarterA.JohnsonW.L. and RitchieR.O., Enhanced fatigue endurance of metallic glasses through a staircase-like fracture mechanism, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA110(46) (2013), 18419–18424.
26.
LauneyM.E. and RitchieR.O., On the fracture toughness of advanced materials, Adv Mater21(20) (2009), 2103–2110.
27.
SchroersJ.KumarG.HodgesT.M.ChanS. and KyriakidesT.R., Bulk metallic glasses for biomedical applications, JOM61(9) (2009), 21–29.
28.
MeagherP.O’CearbhaillE.D.ByrneJ.H. and BrowneD.J., Bulk metallic glasses for implantable medical devices and surgical tools, Adv Mater28(27) (2016), 5755–5762.
29.
SchuhC.A.HufnagelT.C. and RamamurtyU., Mechanical behavior of amorphous alloys, Acta Mater55(12) (2007), 4067–4109.
30.
BruckH.A.ChristmanT.RosakisA.J. and JohnsonW.L., Quasi-static constitutive behavior of Zr41.25Ti13.75Ni10Cu12.5 Be22.5 bulk amorphous alloys, Scr Metall Mater30(4) (1994), 429–434.
31.
FloresK.M. and DauskardtR.H., Mean stress effects on flow localization and failure in a bulk metallic glass, Acta Mater49(13) (2001), 2527–2537.
32.
ChenF.GuY.XuG.CuiY.ChangH. and ZhouL., Improved fracture toughness by microalloying of Fe in Ti-6Al-4V, Mater Design185 (2020), 108251.
33.
KikuchiS.YoshidaS. and UenoA., Improvement of fatigue properties of Ti-6Al-4V alloy under four-point bending by low temperature nitriding, Int J Fatigue120 (2019), 134–140.
