4.8 Review

Metals for bone implants. Part 1. Powder metallurgy and implant rendering

Journal

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages 4058-4070

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.06.025

Keywords

Mandible; Additive manufacturing; Stress shielding; Nitinol (NiTi); Magnesium (Mg)

Funding

  1. US State of Ohio Department of Development [WP10-010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New metal alloys and metal fabrication strategies are likely to benefit future skeletal implant strategies. These metals and fabrication strategies were looked at from the point of view of standard-of-care implants for the mandible. These implants are used as part of the treatment for segmental resection due to oropharyngeal cancer, injury or correction of deformity due to pathology or congenital defect. The focus of this two-part review is the issues associated with the failure of existing mandibular implants that are due to mismatched material properties. Potential directions for future research are also studied. To mitigate these issues, the use of low-stiffness metallic alloys has been highlighted. To this end, the development, processing and biocompatibility of superelastic NiTi as well as resorbable magnesium-based alloys are discussed. Additionally, engineered porosity is reviewed as it can be an effective way of matching the stiffness of an implant with the surrounding tissue. These porosities and the overall geometry of the implant can be optimized for strain transduction and with a tailored stiffness profile. Rendering patient-specific, site-specific, morphology-specific and function-specific implants can now be achieved using these and other metals with bone-like material properties by additive manufacturing. The biocompatibility of implants prepared from superelastic and resorbable alloys is also reviewed. (C) 2014 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available