Advertisement

Titanium Powder Coating Using Metal 3D Printing: A Novel Coating Technology for Cobalt–Chromium Alloy Implants

  • Seung Chan Kim
  • Woo Lam Jo
  • Yong Sik Kim
  • Soon Yong Kwon
  • Yong Soo Cho
  • Young Wook LimEmail author
Original Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Background:

Three-dimensional (3D) printing with a direct metal fabrication (DMF) technology has been innovatively introduced in the field of surface treatment of prostheses. The purpose of this study was to determine whether such modifications on the surface of cobalt–chromium (CoCr) alloy by titanium powder coating using DMF improves the osseointegration ability of CoCr alloy.

Methods:

We compared the in vitro and in vivo ability of cells to adhere to DMF-coated CoCr alloy with machining. Biological and morphological responses to human osteoblast cell lines were examined by measuring cell proliferation rate and observing expression of actin filament. For in vivo study, we inserted different specimens in each medulla of the distal femurs of rabbit. After 3 months, the distal femurs were harvested, and a push-out test and histomorphometric analyses were performed.

Results:

The cell proliferation rate and cell adhesion in the DMF group were higher compared with those in the machined group. Human osteoblast cells on the DMF-coated surface were more strongly adhered and well-proliferated compared with those on the other surface. In the in vivo test, there was a significant difference in the ultimate shear strength between the DMF and machined groups (2.49 MPa vs. 0.87 MPa, respectively, p = 0.001). In the histomorphometric analysis, there was a significant difference in the mean bone-to-implant contact percentages between the DMF and machined groups (72.3 ± 6.2% vs. 47.6 ± 6.9%, respectively, p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Titanium coating of CoCr alloy with 3D metal printing provides optimal surface characteristics and a good biological surface both in vitro and in vivo.

Keywords

Cobalt–chromium alloy Direct metal fabrication Osseointegration Surface treatment 3D printing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Advanced Technology Center project (10048394) from the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KR). The Catholic master cells supplied by the Catholic Institute of Cell Therapy (CIC, Seoul, Korea) were derived from human bone marrow donated by healthy donors after informed consent.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

The animal experiment procedures were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee of The Catholic University of Korea (CUMC-2014-0109-03).

References

  1. 1.
    Saldívar-García AJ, López HF. Microstructural effects on the wear resistance of wrought and as-cast Co–Cr–Mo–C implant alloys. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005;74:269–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sotereanos NG, Engh CA, Glassman AH, Macalino GE, Engh CA Jr. Cementless femoral components should be made from cobalt chrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;313:146–53.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tkachenko S, Datskevich O, Kulak L, Jacobson S, Engqvist H, Persson C. Wear and friction properties of experimental Ti–Si–Zr alloys for biomedical applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;39:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jakobsen SS, Baas J, Jakobsen T, Soballe K. Biomechanical implant fixation of CoCrMo coating inferior to titanium coating in a canine implant model. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;94:180–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jinno T, Goldberg VM, Davy D, Stevenson S. Osseointegration of surface-blasted implants made of titanium alloy and cobalt–chromium alloy in a rabbit intramedullary model. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;42:20–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grandfield K, Palmquist A, Gonçalves S, Taylor A, Taylor M, Emanuelsson L, et al. Free form fabricated features on CoCr implants with and without hydroxyapatite coating in vivo: a comparative study of bone contact and bone growth induction. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011;22:899–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palmquist A, Jarmar T, Hermansson L, Emanuelsson L, Taylor A, Taylor M, et al. Calcium aluminate coated and uncoated free form fabricated CoCr implants: a comparative study in rabbit. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;91:122–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shah FA, Omar O, Suska F, Snis A, Matic A, Emanuelsson L, et al. Long-term osseointegration of 3D printed CoCr constructs with an interconnected open-pore architecture prepared by electron beam melting. Acta Biomater. 2016;36:296–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Martinez E, Medina F, Wicker RB. Next generation orthopaedic implants by additive manufacturing using electron beam melting. Int J Biomater. 2012;2012:245727.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dérand P, Rännar LE, Hirsch JM. Imaging, virtual planning, design, and production of patient-specific implants and clinical validation in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2012;5:137–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shin T, Park SJ, Kang KS, Kim JS, Kim Y, Lim Y, et al. A laser-aided direct metal tooling technology for artificial joint surface coating. Int J Precis Eng Manuf. 2017;18:233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khairallah SA, Anderson AT, Rubenchik A, King WE. Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing: physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and denudation zones. Acta Mater. 2016;108:36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalus M, Frey M, Buchmann LM, Reimer K, Wagner B. Free 3D shaping with grey-tone lithography and multidose e-beam writing. Microelectron Eng. 1998;42:461–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charissoux JL, Najid A, Moreau JC, Setton D, Rigaud M. Development of in vitro biocompatibility assays for surgical material. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;326:259–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Escalas F, Galante J, Rostoker W. Biocompatibility of materials for total joint replacement. J Biomed Mater Res. 1976;10:175–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lemons JE, Niemann KM, Weiss AB. Biocompatibility studies on surgical-grade titanium-, cobalt-, and iron-base alloys. J Biomed Mater Res. 1976;10:549–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schuler M, Trentin D, Textor M, Tosatti SG. Biomedical interfaces: titanium surface technology for implants and cell carriers. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2006;1:449–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Durual S, Rieder P, Garavaglia G, Filieri A, Cattani-Lorente M, Scherrer SS, et al. TiNOx coatings on roughened titanium and CoCr alloy accelerate early osseointegration of dental implants in minipigs. Bone. 2013;52:230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buser D, Nydegger T, Oxland T, Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Hirt HP, et al. Interface shear strength of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;45:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Society and Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Paul’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations