Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:52:54.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bioactive Void Metal Composites for Orthopedic Implant Devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Allison A. Campbell
Affiliation:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, 99352
Gordon L. Graff
Affiliation:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, 99352
Lin Song
Affiliation:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, 99352
Ken R. Sump
Affiliation:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, 99352
Get access

Abstract

Although significant advances have been made to provide mechanically strong and nontoxic metals and alloys, biological integration of devices into natural tissues remains a problem. The Surface Induced Mineralization (SIM) and Void Metal Composite (VMC) processes produce a bioactive porous metal implant coating/device which may address many of the problems associated with conventional processing methods.

The VMC process produces materials which have cylindrical pores of uniform diameter which can completely penetrate the structure of the material. The pore diameter, orientation and interconnectivety are easily controlled

The SIM process uses the idea of nature's template-mediated mineralization by chemically modifying the implant to produce a surface which induces heterogeneous nucleation from aqueous solution. SIM produced bioactive coatings provide 1) control of the thickness and density of the mineral phase, 2) a way to coat porous metals, complex shapes and large objects, 3) the ability to coat a wide variety of materials, 4) potential choice for the phase of the mineral formed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pilliar, R. M., Davies, J. E., and Smith, D. C., MRS Bulletin, XVI[9], 55–61 (1991).Google Scholar
2. Hench, L. L., pp. 54 in Bioceramics: Materials Characteristics Versus in Vivo Behavior, vol.523, edited by Ducheyne, P. and Lemons, J.E., Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, New York (1988).Google Scholar
3. Gross, U., Kinne, R., Schmitz, H. J., and Strunz, V., CRC Crit, Rev. Biocompat., 4[2] (1988).Google Scholar
4. Duchenye, P., Hench, L. L., Kagan, A., Martens, M., Burssens, A., and Mulier, J. C., J. Biomed. Mater, Res., 12224, 225 (1980).Google Scholar
5. Hench, L. L., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 74[7], 1487–510 (1991).Google Scholar
6. Lacefield, W. R., pp: 72–80 in Bioceramics: Materials Characteristics Versus in Vivo Behavior, vol.523, edited by Ducheyne, P. and Lemons, J. E., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York (1988).Google Scholar
7. Spivak, J. J., Ricci, J. L., Blumenthal, N. C., and Alexander, H., J. Biomed,. Mater. Res., 24, 1121 (1990).Google Scholar
8. Bunker, B. C., Rieke, P. C., Tarasevich, B. J., Campbell, A. A., Fryxell, G. E., Graff, G. L., Song, L., Liu, J., Virden, J. W., and McVay, G. L., Science, 264, 4855, (1994).Google Scholar
9. Ulman, A., An Introduction to Ultrathin Organic Films from Langmuir-Blodgett to Self-Assembly, Academic Press, New York, (1991).Google Scholar
10. Whitesides, G. M. and Ferguson, G. S., Chemtracts Org. Chem., 1, 171, (1988).Google Scholar