Shah Furqan A, Trobos Margarita, Thomsen Peter, Palmquist Anders
Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden; BIOMATCELL VINN Excellence Center of Biomaterials and Cell Therapy, Göteborg, Sweden.
Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden; BIOMATCELL VINN Excellence Center of Biomaterials and Cell Therapy, Göteborg, Sweden.
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016 May;62:960-6. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.01.032. Epub 2016 Jan 16.
Commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) and titanium alloys (typically Ti6Al4V) display excellent corrosion resistance and biocompatibility. Although the chemical composition and topography are considered important, the mechanical properties of the material and the loading conditions in the host have, conventionally, influenced material selection for different clinical applications: predominantly Ti6Al4V in orthopaedics while cp-Ti in dentistry. This paper attempts to address three important questions: (i) To what extent do the surface properties differ when cp-Ti and Ti6Al4V materials are manufactured with the same processing technique?, (ii) Does bone tissue respond differently to the two materials, and (iii) Do bacteria responsible for causing biomaterial-associated infections respond differently to the two materials? It is concluded that: (i) Machined cp-Ti and Ti6Al4V exhibit similar surface morphology, topography, phase composition and chemistry, (ii) Under experimental conditions, cp-Ti and Ti6Al4V demonstrate similar osseointegration and biomechanical anchorage, and (iii) Experiments in vitro fail to disclose differences between cp-Ti and Ti6Al4V to harbour Staphylococcus epidermidis growth. No clinical comparative studies exist which could determine if long-term, clinical differences exist between the two types of bulk materials. It is debatable whether cp-Ti or Ti6Al4V exhibit superiority over the other, and further comparative studies, particularly in a clinical setting, are required.
商业纯钛(cp-Ti)和钛合金(通常为Ti6Al4V)具有出色的耐腐蚀性和生物相容性。尽管化学成分和表面形貌被认为很重要,但传统上,材料的机械性能和宿主中的负载条件会影响不同临床应用的材料选择:在骨科中主要使用Ti6Al4V,而在牙科中使用cp-Ti。本文试图解决三个重要问题:(i)当cp-Ti和Ti6Al4V材料采用相同加工技术制造时,其表面性能在多大程度上存在差异?(ii)骨组织对这两种材料的反应是否不同?以及(iii)导致生物材料相关感染的细菌对这两种材料的反应是否不同?得出的结论是:(i)加工后的cp-Ti和Ti6Al4V具有相似的表面形态、形貌、相组成和化学性质;(ii)在实验条件下,cp-Ti和Ti6Al4V表现出相似的骨整合和生物力学锚固;(iii)体外实验未能揭示cp-Ti和Ti6Al4V在容纳表皮葡萄球菌生长方面的差异。目前尚无临床比较研究能够确定这两种块状材料在长期临床应用中是否存在差异。cp-Ti或Ti6Al4V是否比另一种具有优势仍存在争议,需要进一步的比较研究,尤其是在临床环境中的研究。
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016-5
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2014-10-22
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013-9-18
Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2011-8-4
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014-10
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009
Materials (Basel). 2024-8-4
ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2024-6-10
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024-2