Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • 제41권
  • /
  • Pages.52.1-52.8
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
대한악안면성형재건외과학회 (Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Improvement of biohistological response of facial implant materials by tantalum surface treatment

  • Bakri, Mohammed Mousa (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Seoul National University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Sung Ho (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Jong Ho (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2019.07.25
  • 심사 : 2019.09.24
  • 발행 : 2019.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: A compact passive oxide layer can grow on tantalum (Ta). It has been reported that this oxide layer can facilitate bone ingrowth in vivo though the development of bone-like apatite, which promotes hard and soft tissue adhesion. Thus, Ta surface treatment on facial implant materials may improve the tissue response, which could result in less fibrotic encapsulation and make the implant more stable on the bone surface. The purposes of this study were to verify whether surface treatment of facial implant materials using Ta can improve the biohistobiological response and to determine the possibility of potential clinical applications. Methods: Two different and commonly used implant materials, silicone and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), were treated via Ta ion implantation using a Ta sputtering gun. Ta-treated samples were compared with untreated samples using in vitro and in vivo evaluations. Osteoblast (MG-63) and fibroblast (NIH3T3) cell viability with the Ta-treated implant material was assessed, and the tissue response was observed by placing the implants over the rat calvarium (n = 48) for two different lengths of time. Foreign body and inflammatory reactions were observed, and soft tissue thickness between the calvarium and the implant as well as the bone response was measured. Results: The treatment of facial implant materials using Ta showed a tendency toward increased fibroblast and osteoblast viability, although this result was not statistically significant. During the in vivo study, both Ta-treated and untreated implants showed similar foreign body reactions. However, the Ta-treated implant materials (silicone and ePTFE) showed a tendency toward better histological features: lower soft tissue thickness between the implant and the underlying calvarium as well as an increase in new bone activity. Conclusion: Ta surface treatment using ion implantation on silicone and ePTFE facial implant materials showed the possibility of reducing soft tissue intervention between the calvarium and the implant to make the implant more stable on the bone surface. Although no statistically significant improvement was observed, Ta treatment revealed a tendency toward an improved biohistological response of silicone and ePTFE facial implants. Conclusively, tantalum treatment is beneficial and has the potential for clinical applications.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Osman RB, Swain MV (2015) A critical review of dental implant materials with an emphasis on titanium. Materials (Basel) 8:932-958 https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8030932
  2. Fischer S, Hirche C, Reichenberger MA, Kiefer J, Diehm Y, Mukundan S, Alhefzi M et al (2015) Silicone implants with smooth surfaces induce thinner but denser fibrotic capsules compared to those with textured surfaces in a rodent model. PLoS One 10:e0132131 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132131
  3. Wick G, Backovic A, Rabensteiner E, Plank N, Schwentner C, Sgonc R (2010) The immunology of fibrosis: innate and adaptive responses. Trends Immunol 31:110-119 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2009.12.001
  4. Niamtu J (2006) Advanta ePTFE facial implants in cosmetic facial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:543-549 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.11.022
  5. Huo WT, Zhao LZ, Yu S, Yu ZT, Zhang PX, Zhang YS (2017) Significantly enhanced osteoblast response to nano-grained pure tantalum. Sci Rep 7:40868 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40868
  6. Romo T, McLaughlin LA, Levine JM, Sclafani AP (2002) Nasal implants: autogenous, semisynthetic, and synthetic. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 10:155-166 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1064-7406(02)00006-8
  7. Levine B, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ (2006) Applications of porous tantalum in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14:646-655 https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200611000-00008
  8. Li X, Wang L, Yu X, Feng Y, Wang C, Yang K et al (2013) Tantalum coating on porous Ti6Al4V scaffold using chemical vapor deposition and preliminary biological evaluation. Korean J Couns Psychother 33:2987-2994
  9. Stenlund P, Omar O, Brohede U, Norgren S, Norlindh B, Johansson A et al (2015) Bone response to a novel Ti-Ta-Nb-Zr alloy. Acta Biomater 20:165-175 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.03.038
  10. Pinese C, Lin J, Milbreta U, Li M, Wang Y, Leong KW et al (2018) Sustained delivery of siRNA/mesoporous silica nanoparticle complexes from nanofiber scaffolds for long-term gene silencing. Acta Biomater 76:164-177 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.05.054
  11. Schallenberger MA, Rossmeier K, Lovick HM, Meyer TR, Aberman HM, Juda GA (2014) Comparison of the osteogenic potential of OsteoSelect demineralized bone matrix putty to NovaBone calcium-phosphosilicate synthetic putty in a cranial defect model. J Craniofac Surg 25:657-661 https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000610
  12. Levine B, Sporer S, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ, Paprosky W (2007) Porous tantalum in reconstructive surgery of the knee: a review. J Knee Surg 20:185-194
  13. Levine BR, Sporer S, Poggie RA, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ (2006) Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials 27:4671-4681 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.04.041
  14. Wang Q, Qiao Y, Cheng M, Jiang G, He G, Chen Y et al (2016) Tantalum implanted entangled porous titanium promotes surface osseointegration and bone ingrowth. Sci Rep 6:26248 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26248
  15. Patel K, Brandstetter K (2016) Solid implants in facial plastic surgery: potential complications and how to prevent them. Facial Plast Surg 32:520-531 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1586497
  16. Brugger OE, Bornstein MM, Kuchler U, Janner SF, Chappuis V, Buser D (2015) Implant therapy in a surgical specialty clinic: an analysis of patients, indications, surgical procedures, risk factors, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30:151-160 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3769
  17. Filova E, Bullett NA, Bacakova L, Grausova L, Haycock JW, Hlucilova J et al (2009) Regionally-selective cell colonization of micropatterned surfaces prepared by plasma polymerization of acrylic acid and 1,7-octadiene. Physiol Res 58:669-684
  18. Kastellorizios M, Tipnis N, Burgess DJ (2015) Foreign body reaction to subcutaneous implants. Adv Exp Med Biol 865:93-108 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18603-0_6
  19. Joe B, Vijaykumar M, Lokesh BR (2004) Biological properties of curcumincellular and molecular mechanisms of action. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 44:97-111 https://doi.org/10.1080/10408690490424702
  20. Koh TJ, DiPietro LA (2011) Inflammation and wound healing: the role of the macrophage. Expert Rev Mol Med 13:e23 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1462399411001943
  21. Kjoller K, Holmich LR, Jacobsen PH, Friis S, Fryzek J, McLaughlin JK et al (2001) Capsular contracture after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 47:359-366 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-200110000-00001

피인용 문헌

  1. Tantalum and its derivatives in orthopedic and dental implants: Osteogenesis and antibacterial properties vol.208, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.112055