Advertisement

Periarticular Reaction to Wear Debris of Different Ceramic Materials

  • G. Maccauro
  • C. Piconi
  • F. Muratori
  • S. Sangiorgi
  • A. Sgambato
  • W. Burger
  • P. Dalla Pria
  • M. Esposito
  • A. Cittadini
Conference paper
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)

Abstract

For the last 30 years Alumina and Zirconia ceramics constituted the ceramic materials used for the manufacturing of Total Joint Arthroplasty, thanks to the high biological and mechanical properties of these materials (Piconi and al, 2003; Piconi and Maccauro 1999). The new ceramic biocomposite ZPTA (Alumina Matrix Composites by Transformation Toughened and in situ Plateled Reinforcement) that is currently known as Biolox® delta, produced by CeramTec (namely ZPTA in the paper), improving the mechanical properties when compared to Alumina (Burger W. and Richter H.G. 2000), allowed to manufacture components which were not previously possible, and especially the small- diameter ball heads (<28 mm), thin-walled cup insert, knee and finger joints. Few paper reported the in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests on this new material (Willmann, et al. 2000), and in particular as ceramic joints are intended for use in younger patient (Black 1997, Schmalzried 2001), hence the ones with longer life expectations, the study of the chronic effects of small particles, in term of local and systemic toxicity, including carcinogenesys becomes more and more relevant (Archimbeck et al. 2000).

Keywords

Wear Debris Ceramic Particle Total Joint Arthroplasty Peripheral Organ Crevice Corrosion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Archibeck MJ, Jacobs JJ, Black J (2000) Alternate bearing surfaces in total joint arthroplasty: biologic considerations. Clin Orthop 379:12–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black J (1997) Prospects for alternate Bearing surfaces in total hip replacement arthroplasty of the hip. In: Puhl W (ed) Performance of the wear couple BIOLOX Forte in hip arthroplasty, Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 2–10Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burger W, Richter HG (2000) High Strength and Toughness Alumina Matrix Composites by Transformation Toughened and in situ Plateled Reinforcement (ZPTA) — The New Generation of Bioceramics. Bioceramics 13: 545–548.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA (2002) A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:649–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisher J, Stone MH, Tipper JL, Ingham E. (2001) Wear debris generation with metal-on-polyethilene, Metal-on Metal, Ceramic-on-Ceramic hip prostheses. In: Rieker C, Oberholzer S, Wyss U (eds) World Tribology Forum in Arthroplasty. Hans Huber, Bern, pp 25–30Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kubo T, Sawada K, Hirakava K, et al (1999) Histiocite reaction in rabbit femurs to UHMWPE, metal, and ceramic particles in different sizes. J Biomed Mater Res 45:363–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maccauro G, Piconi C, Muratori F, De Santis V, Burger W (2002) Tissue reactions to ceramic wear debris: clinical cases vs animal model (Proc. 8th BIOLOX Symp. Bioceramics in joint Arthroplasty, Zippel H and Dietrich M Eds) 81–87Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piconi C, Maccauro G., Muratori F., Brach del Prever E. (2003) Alumina and zirconia ceramics in joint replacements J. Applied Biomaterials & Biomechanics 1:19–32.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Piconi C. and Maccauro G. (1999) Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 20:1–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rae T (1986) The macrophage to implant materials with special reference to those used in Orthopaedics. CRC Crit Rev Biocomp 2: 97Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmalzried TP, Callaghan JJ (1999) Current Concepts Review: Wear in total hip and knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg 81-A:115–136Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmalzried TP (2001) Patient activity and wear. In: Rieker C, Oberholzer S, Wyss U (eds) World Tribology Forum in Arthroplasty. Hans Huber, Bern, 31–34Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sedel L (2001) Tribology of hip joint replacement. In: Surgical techniques in Orthopedics and Traumatology, Edition Scientifiques et Médicales Elsevier SAS, Paris, 55–430–E–l0Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Tomlinson MJ, et al (2000) Dissemination of wear particles to the liver, spleen, and abdominal lymph nodes of patients with hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 82-A: 457–477Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willert MG, Broback LG, Buchan GM, et al (1996) Crevice corrosion of cemented titanium alloy stems in total hip replacement. Clin Ortop 333:51–75Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Willmann G, von Charnier W, Pfaff HG, Rock R (2000) Biocompatibility of a New Alumina Matrix Biocomposite AMG Bioceramics 13:569–572Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Maccauro
  • C. Piconi
  • F. Muratori
  • S. Sangiorgi
  • A. Sgambato
  • W. Burger
  • P. Dalla Pria
  • M. Esposito
  • A. Cittadini

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations