Practical Failure Analysis

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 47–53 | Cite as

Characterization of metallic piercings that caused adverse reactions during use

  • C. R. F. Azevedo
  • G. Spera
  • A. P. Silva
Peer Reviewed Articles

Abstract

This investigation characterizes five surgical stainless steel piercings and one niobium piercing that caused adverse reactions during use, culminating with the removal of the jewelry. Chemical composition shows that none of the materials are in accordance with ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standards for surgical implant materials. Additionally, none of the stainless steel piercings passed the pitting-resistance criterion of ISO 5832-1, which implies that %Cr + 3.3 × %Mo >26. Under microscopic examination, most of the jewelry revealed the intense presence of linear irregularities on the surface. The lack of resistance to pitting corrosion associated with the poor surface finishing of the stainless steel jewelry may induce localized corrosion, promoting the release of cytotoxic metallic ions (such as Cr, Ni, and Mo) in the local tissue, which can promote several types of adverse effects in the human body, including allergic reactions. The adverse reaction to the niobium jewelry could not be directly associated with the liberation of niobium ions or the residual presence of cytotoxic elements such as Co, Ni, Mo, and Cr. The poor surface finish of the niobium jewelry seems to be the only variable of the material that may promote adverse reactions.

Keywords

adverse reactions body piercing characterization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D.E. Cohen, et al: “American Academy of Dermatology’s Position Paper on Latex Allergy,”J. Amer. Acad. Derm., July 1998, pp. 98–106.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Yang and K. Merritt: “Detection of Antibodies Against Corrosion Products in Patients After C-Cr Total Joint Replacements,”J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 1994,28, pp. 1249–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Doran, C. Law, M.J. Allen, and N. Rushton: “Neoplastic Transformation of Cells by Soluble but not Particulate Forms of Metals in Orthopaedic Implants,”Biomaterials, 1998,19, pp. 751–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Young and R.H. Houwing: “Patch Test Results with Standard Allergens Over a Decade,”Contact Dermatitis, 1987,17, pp. 104–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.O. Rogero et al.: “Cytotoxicity Due to Corrosion of Ear Piercing Studs,”Toxicol. in Vitro, 2000,14, pp. 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Pönkä and A. Ekman: “Insensitivity of the Routine Dimethylgyoxime Test Goes Detecting Release of Nickel from Earrings,”Sci. Total Environ., 1998,224, pp. 161–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anon: inImplants for Surgery — Metallic Materials — Parts 1–12, International Organization for Standardization, ISO 5832-1 to ISO 5832-12, Geneve.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anon: Medical Devices; Emergency Medical Services, inAnnual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 13.01, section 13, ASTM, W. Conshohocken, PA, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anon: inStandard Practice for Surface Preparation and Marking of Metallic Surgical Implants, ASTM F86-91, ASTM, W. Conshohocken, PA, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anon: inImplants for Surgery — Orthopaedic Joint Prostheses Basic Requirements, International Organization for Standardization, ISO 5839, Geneve.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.M. Davison: Corrosion of Stainless Steels,Corrosion, vol. 13,Metals Handbook, 9th ed., ASM International, 1987, pp. 547–65.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A.C. Fraker: Corrosion of Metallic Implants and Prosthetic Devices,Corrosion, vol. 13,Metals Handbook, 9th ed., ASM International, 1987, pp. 1324–35.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.L. Faust: Electropolishing,Heat Treating, Cleaning and Finishing, vol. 2,Metals Handbook, 8th ed., American Society for Metals, 1964, pp. 484–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Z. Cai, H. Nakajima, M. Woldu, A. Berglund, M. Berman, and T. Okabe: “In Vitro Corrosion Resistance of Titanium Made Using Different Fabrication Methods,”Biomaterials, 1999,20, pp. 183–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Sasaki and G.T. Burstein: “The Generation of Surface Roughness During Slurry Erosion-Corrosion and its Effect on the Pitting Potential,”Corros. Sci., 1996,38(12), pp. 2111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Meijer, M. Bredberg, T. Fischer, and L. Vidströ: “Ear Piercing and Nickel and Cobalt Sensitization in 520 Swedish Men Doing Compulsory Military Service,”Contact Dermatitis, 1995,32, pp. 147–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.L.C. Wu, doctor of the Dermatology Clinic at Hospital do Servidor Público Municipal de São Paulo and member of the Brazilian Society for Dermatology; private communication, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.A. Disegi and L. Eschbach: “Stainless Steel in Bone Surgery,”Injury, 2000,31, SD2–6.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Matsuno, A. Yokoyama, F. Watari, M. Uo, and T. Kawasaki: “Biocompatibility and Osteogenesis of Refractory Metal Implants, Titanium, Hafnium, Niobium, Tantalum and Rhenium,”Biomaterials, 2001,22, pp. 1253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    S.H. Flint, J.D. Brooks, and P.J. Bremer: “Properties of the Stainless Steel Substrate, Influencing the Adhesion of Thermo-resistant Streptococci,”J. Food Eng., 2000,43, pp. 235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    I. Peate: “Body Piercing: Could You Answer Your Patient’s Queries?”Brit. J. Nurs., 2000,9, p. 20.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anon: inStandard Practice for Implantable Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Polymer Fabricated in Sheet, Tube, and Rod Shapes, ASTM F754-88, ASTM, W. Conshohocken, PA, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International - The Materials Information Society 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. R. F. Azevedo
    • 1
  • G. Spera
    • 1
  • A. P. Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Failure AnalysisInstituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas do Estado de São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations