In vitro and in vivo study on the osseointegration of BCP‐coated versus uncoated nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane focal knee resurfacing implants
Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to devel...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials Applied biomaterials, 2020-11, Vol.108 (8), p.3370-3382 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3382 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 3370 |
| container_title | Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials |
| container_volume | 108 |
| creator | Jeuken, Ralph M. Roth, Alex K. Peters, Marloes J.M. Welting, Tim J.M. Rhijn, Lodewijk W. Koenen, Jac Peters, Ruud J.R.W. Thies, Jens C. Emans, Pieter J. |
| description | Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to develop a nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) FKRI and investigate its osseointegration. Different surface roughness modifications and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) coating densities were first tested in vitro on TPU discs. The in vivo osseointegration of BCP‐coated TPU implants was subsequently compared to uncoated TPU implants and the titanium bottom layer of metal control implants in a caprine model. Implants were implanted bilaterally in stifle joints and animals were followed for 12 weeks, after which the bone‐to‐implant contact area (BIC) was assessed. Additionally, 18F‐sodium‐fluoride (18F‐NaF) positron emission tomography PET/CT‐scans were obtained at 3 and 12 weeks to visualize the bone metabolism over time. The BIC was significantly higher for the BCP‐coated TPU implants compared to the uncoated TPU implants (p = .03), and did not significantly differ from titanium (p = .68). Similar 18F‐NaF tracer uptake patterns were observed between 3 and 12 weeks for the BCP‐coated TPU and titanium implants, but not for the uncoated implants. TPU FKRIs with surface modifications could provide the answer to the drawbacks of metal FKRIs.
Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to develop a nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) FKRI and investigate its osseointegration. Different surface roughness modifications and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) coating densities were first tested in vitro on TPU discs. The in vivo osseointegration of BCP‐coated TPU implants was subsequently compared to uncoated TPU implants and the titanium bottom layer of metal control implants in a caprine model. Implants were implanted bilaterally in stifle joints and animals were followed for 12 weeks, after which the bone‐to‐implant contact area (BIC) was assessed. Additionally, 18F‐sodium‐fluoride (18F‐NaF) positron emission tomography PET/CT‐scans were obtained at 3 and 12 weeks to visualize the bone metabolism over time. The |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jbm.b.34672 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7586808</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2419715721</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4522-df71816129fb298307ee7aae2bb4bcc8146ccda7773fa3c57f4e966434abab713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcuO0zAUhiMEYi6wYo8ssUEatcSXxM4GiVZcBg2CBawt2zlpXRK7YztF3fEI7Hk7ngSHlgpYsLKP_enzOf6L4hEu57gsybONHuZ6TlnNyZ3iHFcVmbFG4LunPadnxUWMmwzXZUXvF2eU1JgxUZ8X368d2tkUPFKuRXYqdh7FNLZ75B1Ka0A-RvDWJVgFlWw-9B1aLD_8-PrNeJWgRTsIcYxodMfaeddOcKt0D5MiDH7bq5isQVvf78cAaa0coM4b1aPPDgAFiGPolLFuheyQaZfig-Jep_oID4_rZfHp1cuPyzezm_evr5cvbmaGVYTM2o5jgWtMmk6TRtCSA3ClgGjNtDECs9qYVnHOaaeoqXjHoKlrRpnSSnNML4vnB-921AO0BlwKqpfbYAcV9tIrK_--cXYtV34neSVqUYoseHoUBH87QkxysNFAn6cAP0ZJGG44rjiZ3nryD7rxY3B5vEwxQQWjdBJeHSgT8u8H6E7N4FJOocscutTyV-iZfvxn_yf2d8oZIAfgi-1h_z-XfLt4tzhYfwJ_C73w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2448384338</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>In vitro and in vivo study on the osseointegration of BCP‐coated versus uncoated nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane focal knee resurfacing implants</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Jeuken, Ralph M. ; Roth, Alex K. ; Peters, Marloes J.M. ; Welting, Tim J.M. ; Rhijn, Lodewijk W. ; Koenen, Jac ; Peters, Ruud J.R.W. ; Thies, Jens C. ; Emans, Pieter J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Jeuken, Ralph M. ; Roth, Alex K. ; Peters, Marloes J.M. ; Welting, Tim J.M. ; Rhijn, Lodewijk W. ; Koenen, Jac ; Peters, Ruud J.R.W. ; Thies, Jens C. ; Emans, Pieter J.</creatorcontrib><description>Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to develop a nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) FKRI and investigate its osseointegration. Different surface roughness modifications and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) coating densities were first tested in vitro on TPU discs. The in vivo osseointegration of BCP‐coated TPU implants was subsequently compared to uncoated TPU implants and the titanium bottom layer of metal control implants in a caprine model. Implants were implanted bilaterally in stifle joints and animals were followed for 12 weeks, after which the bone‐to‐implant contact area (BIC) was assessed. Additionally, 18F‐sodium‐fluoride (18F‐NaF) positron emission tomography PET/CT‐scans were obtained at 3 and 12 weeks to visualize the bone metabolism over time. The BIC was significantly higher for the BCP‐coated TPU implants compared to the uncoated TPU implants (p = .03), and did not significantly differ from titanium (p = .68). Similar 18F‐NaF tracer uptake patterns were observed between 3 and 12 weeks for the BCP‐coated TPU and titanium implants, but not for the uncoated implants. TPU FKRIs with surface modifications could provide the answer to the drawbacks of metal FKRIs.
Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to develop a nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) FKRI and investigate its osseointegration. Different surface roughness modifications and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) coating densities were first tested in vitro on TPU discs. The in vivo osseointegration of BCP‐coated TPU implants was subsequently compared to uncoated TPU implants and the titanium bottom layer of metal control implants in a caprine model. Implants were implanted bilaterally in stifle joints and animals were followed for 12 weeks, after which the bone‐to‐implant contact area (BIC) was assessed. Additionally, 18F‐sodium‐fluoride (18F‐NaF) positron emission tomography PET/CT‐scans were obtained at 3 and 12 weeks to visualize the bone metabolism over time. The BIC was significantly higher for the BCP‐coated TPU implants compared to the uncoated TPU implants (p = .03), and did not significantly differ from titanium (p = .68). Similar 18F‐NaF tracer uptake patterns were observed between 3 and 12 weeks for the BCP‐coated TPU and titanium implants, but not for the uncoated implants. TPU FKRIs with surface modifications could provide the answer to the drawbacks of metal FKRIs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1552-4973</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-4981</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.34672</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32614486</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Biomedical materials ; bone ingrowth ; Bone turnover ; Calcium ; Calcium phosphates ; Cartilage ; Coating ; Coatings ; Computed tomography ; Emission analysis ; Fluorides ; Fluorine isotopes ; implant interface ; In vivo methods and tests ; Knee ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Materials research ; Materials science ; Metabolism ; Original Research Report ; Original Research Reports ; Osseointegration ; Polyurethane ; Polyurethane resins ; polyurethanes ; Positron emission ; Positron emission tomography ; Resurfacing ; Sodium fluoride ; Surface roughness ; Surfacing ; Surgical implants ; Titanium ; Tomography ; Transplants & implants ; Urethane thermoplastic elastomers</subject><ispartof>Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2020-11, Vol.108 (8), p.3370-3382</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><rights>2020 The Authors. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4522-df71816129fb298307ee7aae2bb4bcc8146ccda7773fa3c57f4e966434abab713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4522-df71816129fb298307ee7aae2bb4bcc8146ccda7773fa3c57f4e966434abab713</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4121-8519 ; 0000-0001-7729-8800</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjbm.b.34672$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjbm.b.34672$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32614486$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jeuken, Ralph M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roth, Alex K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, Marloes J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Welting, Tim J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhijn, Lodewijk W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koenen, Jac</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, Ruud J.R.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thies, Jens C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emans, Pieter J.</creatorcontrib><title>In vitro and in vivo study on the osseointegration of BCP‐coated versus uncoated nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane focal knee resurfacing implants</title><title>Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials</title><addtitle>J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater</addtitle><description>Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to develop a nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) FKRI and investigate its osseointegration. Different surface roughness modifications and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) coating densities were first tested in vitro on TPU discs. The in vivo osseointegration of BCP‐coated TPU implants was subsequently compared to uncoated TPU implants and the titanium bottom layer of metal control implants in a caprine model. Implants were implanted bilaterally in stifle joints and animals were followed for 12 weeks, after which the bone‐to‐implant contact area (BIC) was assessed. Additionally, 18F‐sodium‐fluoride (18F‐NaF) positron emission tomography PET/CT‐scans were obtained at 3 and 12 weeks to visualize the bone metabolism over time. The BIC was significantly higher for the BCP‐coated TPU implants compared to the uncoated TPU implants (p = .03), and did not significantly differ from titanium (p = .68). Similar 18F‐NaF tracer uptake patterns were observed between 3 and 12 weeks for the BCP‐coated TPU and titanium implants, but not for the uncoated implants. TPU FKRIs with surface modifications could provide the answer to the drawbacks of metal FKRIs.
Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to develop a nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) FKRI and investigate its osseointegration. Different surface roughness modifications and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) coating densities were first tested in vitro on TPU discs. The in vivo osseointegration of BCP‐coated TPU implants was subsequently compared to uncoated TPU implants and the titanium bottom layer of metal control implants in a caprine model. Implants were implanted bilaterally in stifle joints and animals were followed for 12 weeks, after which the bone‐to‐implant contact area (BIC) was assessed. Additionally, 18F‐sodium‐fluoride (18F‐NaF) positron emission tomography PET/CT‐scans were obtained at 3 and 12 weeks to visualize the bone metabolism over time. The BIC was significantly higher for the BCP‐coated TPU implants compared to the uncoated TPU implants (p = .03), and did not significantly differ from titanium (p = .68). Similar 18F‐NaF tracer uptake patterns were observed between 3 and 12 weeks for the BCP‐coated TPU and titanium implants, but not for the uncoated implants. TPU FKRIs with surface modifications could provide the answer to the drawbacks of metal FKRIs.</description><subject>Biomedical materials</subject><subject>bone ingrowth</subject><subject>Bone turnover</subject><subject>Calcium</subject><subject>Calcium phosphates</subject><subject>Cartilage</subject><subject>Coating</subject><subject>Coatings</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Emission analysis</subject><subject>Fluorides</subject><subject>Fluorine isotopes</subject><subject>implant interface</subject><subject>In vivo methods and tests</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Materials research</subject><subject>Materials science</subject><subject>Metabolism</subject><subject>Original Research Report</subject><subject>Original Research Reports</subject><subject>Osseointegration</subject><subject>Polyurethane</subject><subject>Polyurethane resins</subject><subject>polyurethanes</subject><subject>Positron emission</subject><subject>Positron emission tomography</subject><subject>Resurfacing</subject><subject>Sodium fluoride</subject><subject>Surface roughness</subject><subject>Surfacing</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Titanium</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Urethane thermoplastic elastomers</subject><issn>1552-4973</issn><issn>1552-4981</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcuO0zAUhiMEYi6wYo8ssUEatcSXxM4GiVZcBg2CBawt2zlpXRK7YztF3fEI7Hk7ngSHlgpYsLKP_enzOf6L4hEu57gsybONHuZ6TlnNyZ3iHFcVmbFG4LunPadnxUWMmwzXZUXvF2eU1JgxUZ8X368d2tkUPFKuRXYqdh7FNLZ75B1Ka0A-RvDWJVgFlWw-9B1aLD_8-PrNeJWgRTsIcYxodMfaeddOcKt0D5MiDH7bq5isQVvf78cAaa0coM4b1aPPDgAFiGPolLFuheyQaZfig-Jep_oID4_rZfHp1cuPyzezm_evr5cvbmaGVYTM2o5jgWtMmk6TRtCSA3ClgGjNtDECs9qYVnHOaaeoqXjHoKlrRpnSSnNML4vnB-921AO0BlwKqpfbYAcV9tIrK_--cXYtV34neSVqUYoseHoUBH87QkxysNFAn6cAP0ZJGG44rjiZ3nryD7rxY3B5vEwxQQWjdBJeHSgT8u8H6E7N4FJOocscutTyV-iZfvxn_yf2d8oZIAfgi-1h_z-XfLt4tzhYfwJ_C73w</recordid><startdate>202011</startdate><enddate>202011</enddate><creator>Jeuken, Ralph M.</creator><creator>Roth, Alex K.</creator><creator>Peters, Marloes J.M.</creator><creator>Welting, Tim J.M.</creator><creator>Rhijn, Lodewijk W.</creator><creator>Koenen, Jac</creator><creator>Peters, Ruud J.R.W.</creator><creator>Thies, Jens C.</creator><creator>Emans, Pieter J.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4121-8519</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7729-8800</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202011</creationdate><title>In vitro and in vivo study on the osseointegration of BCP‐coated versus uncoated nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane focal knee resurfacing implants</title><author>Jeuken, Ralph M. ; Roth, Alex K. ; Peters, Marloes J.M. ; Welting, Tim J.M. ; Rhijn, Lodewijk W. ; Koenen, Jac ; Peters, Ruud J.R.W. ; Thies, Jens C. ; Emans, Pieter J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4522-df71816129fb298307ee7aae2bb4bcc8146ccda7773fa3c57f4e966434abab713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Biomedical materials</topic><topic>bone ingrowth</topic><topic>Bone turnover</topic><topic>Calcium</topic><topic>Calcium phosphates</topic><topic>Cartilage</topic><topic>Coating</topic><topic>Coatings</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Emission analysis</topic><topic>Fluorides</topic><topic>Fluorine isotopes</topic><topic>implant interface</topic><topic>In vivo methods and tests</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Materials research</topic><topic>Materials science</topic><topic>Metabolism</topic><topic>Original Research Report</topic><topic>Original Research Reports</topic><topic>Osseointegration</topic><topic>Polyurethane</topic><topic>Polyurethane resins</topic><topic>polyurethanes</topic><topic>Positron emission</topic><topic>Positron emission tomography</topic><topic>Resurfacing</topic><topic>Sodium fluoride</topic><topic>Surface roughness</topic><topic>Surfacing</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Titanium</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Urethane thermoplastic elastomers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jeuken, Ralph M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roth, Alex K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, Marloes J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Welting, Tim J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhijn, Lodewijk W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koenen, Jac</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, Ruud J.R.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thies, Jens C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emans, Pieter J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jeuken, Ralph M.</au><au>Roth, Alex K.</au><au>Peters, Marloes J.M.</au><au>Welting, Tim J.M.</au><au>Rhijn, Lodewijk W.</au><au>Koenen, Jac</au><au>Peters, Ruud J.R.W.</au><au>Thies, Jens C.</au><au>Emans, Pieter J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>In vitro and in vivo study on the osseointegration of BCP‐coated versus uncoated nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane focal knee resurfacing implants</atitle><jtitle>Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials</jtitle><addtitle>J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater</addtitle><date>2020-11</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>108</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>3370</spage><epage>3382</epage><pages>3370-3382</pages><issn>1552-4973</issn><eissn>1552-4981</eissn><abstract>Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to develop a nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) FKRI and investigate its osseointegration. Different surface roughness modifications and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) coating densities were first tested in vitro on TPU discs. The in vivo osseointegration of BCP‐coated TPU implants was subsequently compared to uncoated TPU implants and the titanium bottom layer of metal control implants in a caprine model. Implants were implanted bilaterally in stifle joints and animals were followed for 12 weeks, after which the bone‐to‐implant contact area (BIC) was assessed. Additionally, 18F‐sodium‐fluoride (18F‐NaF) positron emission tomography PET/CT‐scans were obtained at 3 and 12 weeks to visualize the bone metabolism over time. The BIC was significantly higher for the BCP‐coated TPU implants compared to the uncoated TPU implants (p = .03), and did not significantly differ from titanium (p = .68). Similar 18F‐NaF tracer uptake patterns were observed between 3 and 12 weeks for the BCP‐coated TPU and titanium implants, but not for the uncoated implants. TPU FKRIs with surface modifications could provide the answer to the drawbacks of metal FKRIs.
Focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) are intended to treat cartilage defects in middle‐aged patients. Most FKRIs are metal‐based, which hampers follow‐up of the joint using magnetic resonance imaging and potentially leads to damage of the opposing cartilage. The purpose of this study was to develop a nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) FKRI and investigate its osseointegration. Different surface roughness modifications and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) coating densities were first tested in vitro on TPU discs. The in vivo osseointegration of BCP‐coated TPU implants was subsequently compared to uncoated TPU implants and the titanium bottom layer of metal control implants in a caprine model. Implants were implanted bilaterally in stifle joints and animals were followed for 12 weeks, after which the bone‐to‐implant contact area (BIC) was assessed. Additionally, 18F‐sodium‐fluoride (18F‐NaF) positron emission tomography PET/CT‐scans were obtained at 3 and 12 weeks to visualize the bone metabolism over time. The BIC was significantly higher for the BCP‐coated TPU implants compared to the uncoated TPU implants (p = .03), and did not significantly differ from titanium (p = .68). Similar 18F‐NaF tracer uptake patterns were observed between 3 and 12 weeks for the BCP‐coated TPU and titanium implants, but not for the uncoated implants. TPU FKRIs with surface modifications could provide the answer to the drawbacks of metal FKRIs.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>32614486</pmid><doi>10.1002/jbm.b.34672</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4121-8519</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7729-8800</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1552-4973 |
| ispartof | Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2020-11, Vol.108 (8), p.3370-3382 |
| issn | 1552-4973 1552-4981 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7586808 |
| source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Biomedical materials bone ingrowth Bone turnover Calcium Calcium phosphates Cartilage Coating Coatings Computed tomography Emission analysis Fluorides Fluorine isotopes implant interface In vivo methods and tests Knee Magnetic resonance imaging Materials research Materials science Metabolism Original Research Report Original Research Reports Osseointegration Polyurethane Polyurethane resins polyurethanes Positron emission Positron emission tomography Resurfacing Sodium fluoride Surface roughness Surfacing Surgical implants Titanium Tomography Transplants & implants Urethane thermoplastic elastomers |
| title | In vitro and in vivo study on the osseointegration of BCP‐coated versus uncoated nondegradable thermoplastic polyurethane focal knee resurfacing implants |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T17%3A47%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=In%20vitro%20and%20in%20vivo%20study%20on%20the%20osseointegration%20of%20BCP%E2%80%90coated%20versus%20uncoated%20nondegradable%20thermoplastic%20polyurethane%20focal%20knee%20resurfacing%20implants&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20biomedical%20materials%20research.%20Part%20B,%20Applied%20biomaterials&rft.au=Jeuken,%20Ralph%20M.&rft.date=2020-11&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=3370&rft.epage=3382&rft.pages=3370-3382&rft.issn=1552-4973&rft.eissn=1552-4981&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jbm.b.34672&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2419715721%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2448384338&rft_id=info:pmid/32614486&rfr_iscdi=true |