Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T02:33:17.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surface Properties, Efficacy and Biological Responses to Biomaterials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

J. E. Lemons
J. E. Lemons*
Affiliation:
Department of Biomaterials, University of Alabama at Birmingham, SDB Box 49, Birmingham, Alabama 35294
Get access

Abstract

Biological responses to synthetic materials used for the construction of surgical implants often determine device longevities. Over the past two decades, individuals from basic and applied disciplines have attempted to better understand the phenomena associated with biomaterial to tissue interfaces and to better control the surface and bulk properties of the synthetic substances for each area of device applications. Surface properties of metals, polymers, ceramics and composites are reviewed and where possible, correlated with tissue responses. Specific examples of solid and porous titanium and cobalt base alloys are presented to demonstrate the importance of surface and bulk properties with respect to biocompatibility.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 110: Symposium M – Biomedical Materials and Devices , 1987 , 313
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

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. Definitions in Biomaterials, Williams, D.F., Editor, Proceeding of Consensus Conference, Chester, England, March, 1986, (In Press).Google Scholar
2. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Medical Devices, 13.01, ASTM Publishing, Philadelphia, PA, 1986.Google Scholar
3. Quantitative Characterization and Performance of Porous Implants for Hard Tissue Applications, Lemons, J. E., Editor, ASTM-STP 953, ASTM Publishing, Philadelphia, PA, (1987) (In Press).Google Scholar
4. Corrosion and Degradation of Implant Materials, Fraker, A. and Griffin, C., Editors, ASTM-STP 859, ASTM Publishing, Philadelphia, PA, (1985).Google Scholar
5. Implant Retrieval: Material and Biological Analysis, NBS Special Pub. 601, Weinstein, A., Gibbons, D., Brown, S. and Ruff, W., Editors, U.S. Dept. of Commerce Pub., Washington, D.C., (1981).Google Scholar
6. Biocompatibility of Orthopaedic Implants, Williams, D. F., Editor, Vol 1, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, (1982).Google Scholar
7. Lemons, J. E., Surface Evaluations of Materials, J. of Oral Implantology, XII, No. 3, 1986, 396–406.Google Scholar
8. Meenaghan, M. A., Natiella, J. R., Baier, R. E., Flynn, H.E., Carter, J. M. and Meyer, A. E., The Dental Implant – Tissue Interface, Int. Assoc. for Dental Research Abstract 526, J. Dental Research, 65, (1986), 165.Google Scholar
9. The Dental Implant, McKinney, R. V. Jr and Lemons, J. E., Editors, PSG Publishing, Littleton, MA, (1985).Google Scholar
10. Gross, U. and Strunz, V., in Clinical Applications of Biomaterials, Lee, A., Albrektsson, T. and Branemark, P., Editors, Vol.4, John Wiley and Sons, NY, NY, (1982).Google Scholar
11. Lucas, L., in Corrosion and Degredation of Implant Materials, Fraker, A. and Griffin, C., Editors, ASTM-STP 859, ASTM Publishing, Philadelphia, PA. (1985).Google Scholar
12. Osseointegrated Implants, Branemark, P., Hansson, B., Ardell, R., Breine, V., Lindstrom, L., Hallen, O. and Ohman, A., Editors, Almquist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden, (1977).Google Scholar
13. Pilliar, R. M. and Bobyn, J. D., The Effect of EHDP on the Fixation of Porous Coated Implants by Bone Ingrowth, Trans. Orth. Res. Soc., 12, (1987), 438.Google Scholar
14. Bobyn, J. D., Pilliar, R. M., Binnington, A.G. and Szivek, J.A., The Effect of Partially and Fully Porous Coated Hip Stem Design on Biological Fixation and Adaptive Bone Modeling, Trans. Orth. Res. Soc. 10, (1985), 170.Google Scholar