Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 124, Issue 2, pp 104–113 | Cite as

Difference in metallic wear distribution released from commercially pure titanium compared with stainless steel plates

  • G. D. Krischak
  • F. Gebhard
  • W. Mohr
  • V. Krivan
  • A. Ignatius
  • A. Beck
  • N. J. Wachter
  • P. Reuter
  • M. Arand
  • L. Kinzl
  • L. E. Claes
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Stainless steel and commercially pure titanium are widely used materials in orthopedic implants. However, it is still being controversially discussed whether there are significant differences in tissue reaction and metallic release, which should result in a recommendation for preferred use in clinical practice.

Materials and methods

A comparative study was performed using 14 stainless steel and 8 commercially pure titanium plates retrieved after a 12-month implantation period. To avoid contamination of the tissue with the elements under investigation, surgical instruments made of zirconium dioxide were used. The tissue samples were analyzed histologically and by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) for accumulation of the metals Fe, Cr, Mo, Ni, and Ti in the local tissues. Implant corrosion was determined by the use of scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Results

With grades 2 or higher in 9 implants, steel plates revealed a higher extent of corrosion in the SEM compared with titanium, where only one implant showed corrosion grade 2. Metal uptake of all measured ions (Fe, Cr, Mo, Ni) was significantly increased after stainless steel implantation, whereas titanium revealed only high concentrations for Ti. For the two implant materials, a different distribution of the accumulated metals was found by histological examination. Whereas specimens after steel implantation revealed a diffuse siderosis of connective tissue cells, those after titanium exhibited occasionally a focal siderosis due to implantation-associated bleeding. Neither titanium- nor stainless steel-loaded tissues revealed any signs of foreign-body reaction.

Conclusion

We conclude from the increased release of toxic, allergic, and potentially carcinogenic ions adjacent to stainless steel that commercially pure Ti should be treated as the preferred material for osteosyntheses if a removal of the implant is not intended. However, neither material provoked a foreign-body reaction in the local tissues, thus cpTi cannot be recommend as the ‘golden standard’ for osteosynthesis material in general.

Keywords

Stainless steel Commercially pure titanium Metallurgical analysis Trace element analysis Retrieval study 

References

  1. 1.
    Affato S, Ferrari G, Chevalier J, Ruggeri O, Toni A (2002) Surface characterization and debris analysis of ceramic pairings after ten million cycles on a hip joint simulator. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 216:419–424Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arens S, Schlegel U, Printzen G, Ziegler WJ, Perren SM, Hansis M (1996) Influence of materials for fixation implants on local infection. An experimental study of steel versus titanium DCP in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:647–651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bianco PD, Ducheyne P, Cuckler JM (1998) Local accumulation of titanium released from a titanium implant in the absence of wear. J Biomed Mater Res 31:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black J, Sherk H, Bonini J, Rostoker WR, Schajowicz F, Galante JO (1990) Metallosis associated with a stable titanium-alloy femoral component in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:126–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Case CP, Langkamer VG, James C, Palmer MR, Kemp AJ, Heap PF, Solomon L (1994) Widespread dissemination of metal debris from implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:701–712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook SD, Renz EA, Barrack RL, Thomas KA, Harding AF, Haddad RJ Jr, Milicic M (1985) Clinical and metallurgical analysis of retrieved internal fixation devices. Clin Orthop 194:236–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cunningham BW, Orbegoso CM, Dmitriev AE, Hallab NJ, Sefter JC, McAfee PC (2002) The effect of titanium particulate on development and maintenance of a posterolateral spinal arthrodesis: an in vivo rabbit model. Spine 27:1971–1981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doran A, Law FC, Allen MJ, Rushton N (1999) Neoplastic transformation of cells by soluble but not particulate forms of metals used in orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials 19:751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ducheyne P, Willems G, Martens M, Helsen J (1984) In vivo metal-ion release from porous titanium-fiber material. J Biomed Mater Res 18:293–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gotman I (1997) Characteristics of metals used in implants. J Endourol 11:383–389PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haudrechy P, Mantout B, Frappaz A, Rousseau A, Chabeau G, Faure M, Claudy A (1997) Nickel release from stainless steel. Contact Dermatitis 37:113–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haynes DR, Crotti TN, Haywood MR (2000) Corrosion of and changes in biological effects of cobalt chrome alloy and 316L stainless steel prosthetic particles with age. J Biomed Mater Res 49:167–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunt JA, Williams DF, Ungersboeck A, Perren S (1994) The effect of titanium debris on soft tissue response. J Mater Sci Mater Med 5:381–383Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobs JJ, Gilbert JL, Urban RM (1998) Corrosion of metal orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:268–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim YK, Yeo HH, Lim SC (1997) Tissue response to titanium plates: a transmitted electron microscopic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:322–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kraft CN, Burian B, Perlick L, Wimmer MA, Wallny T, Schmitt O, Diedrich O (2001) Impact of a nickel-reduced stainless steel implant on striated muscle microcirculation: a comparative in vivo study. J Biomed Mater Res 57:404–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kraft CN, Diedrich O, Burian B, Schmitt O, Wimmer MA (2003) Microvascular response of striated muscle to metal debris. A comparative in vivo study with titanium and stainless steel. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:133–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krivan V (1986) Application of radiotracers to methodological studies in trace element analysis. In: Elving PJ (ed) Offprints from treatise on analytical chemistry. John Wiley, Philadelphia, pp 339–417Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langford RJ, Frame JW (2002) Tissue changes adjacent to titanium plates in patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 30:103–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mackay D, Gower A, Mawhinney B, Gregg PJ, McCaskie AW (2000) Metallic instrument debris: a source of third-body wear particles? J Arthroplasty 15:816–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matthew IR, Frame JW (2000) Release of metal in vivo from stressed and nonstressed maxillofacial fracture plates and screws. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 90:33–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morais S, Sousa JP, Fernandes MH, Carvalho GS, Bruijn JD de, Blitterswijk CA van (1998) Decreased consumption of Ca and P during in vitro biomineralization and biologically induced deposition of Ni and Cr in presence of stainless steel corrosion products. J Biomed Mater Res 42:199–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Naidu SH, Warner CP, Laird C (1996) Mechanical stamping: a cause of fatigue fracture. Clin Orthop 328:261–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Okamoto K (1996) Problems related to trace element determination in biological materials. Nippon Rinsho 54:186–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pereira MC, Pereira ML, Sousa JP (1998) Evaluation of nickel toxicity on liver, spleen, and kidney of mice after administration of high-dose metal ion. J Biomed Mater Res 40:40–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pereira ML, Silva A, Tracana R, Carvalho GS (1994) Toxic effects caused by stainless steel corrosion products on mouse seminiferous cells. Cytobios 77:73–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pietra R, Sabbioni E, Brossa F, Gallorini M, Faruffini G, Fumagalli EM (1990) Titanium nitride as a coating for surgical instruments used to collect human tissue for trace metal analysis. Analyst 115:1025–1028PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rawlings RD, Robinson PB, Rogers PS (1995) The durability of ceramic coated dental instruments. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 3:211–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rodushkin I, Odman F (2001) Assessment of the contamination from devices used for sampling and storage of whole blood and serum for analysis. J Trace Elem Med Biol 15:40–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Savory J, Herman MM (1999) Advances in instrumental methods for the measurement and speciation of trace metals. Ann Clin Lab Sci 29:118–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmalz G, Schuster U, Schweikl H (1998) Influence of metals on IL-6 release in vitro. Biomaterials 19:1689–1694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmitt Y (1987) Influence of preanalytical factors on the atomic absorption spectrometry determination of trace elements in biological samples. J Trace Elem Electrolytes Health Dis 1:107–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simpson JP, Geret V, Brown SA, Merritt K (1981) Retrieved fracture plates: implant and tissue analysis. In: Weinstein A, Gibbons D, Brown SA, Ruff A, (eds) Implant retrieval: material and biological analysis. NBS special publication 601, Washington DC, pp 395–422Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sittig C, Textor M, Spencer ND, Wieland M, Vallotton PH (1999) Surface characterization of implant materials c.p.Ti, Ti-6Al-7Nb and Ti-6Al-4V with different pretreatments. J Mater Sci Mater Med 10:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith RG (1972) Five of potential significance. In: Lee DHK (ed) Metallic contaminants and human health. Academic Press, New York, pp 139–162Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steinemann SG (1996) Metal implants and surface reactions. Injury [suppl] 3:S-C16–22Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thewes M, Kretschmer R, Gfesser M, Rakoski J, Nerlich M, Borelli S, Ring J (2001) Immunohistochemical characterization of the perivascular infiltrate cells in tissues adjacent to stainless steel implants compared with titanium implants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 121:223–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Togersen S, Gjerdet NR, Erichsen ES, Bang G (1995) Metal particles and tissue changes adjacent to miniplates. A retrieval study. Acta Odontol Scand 53:65–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torgersen S, Moe G, Jonsson R (1995) Immunocompetent cells adjacent to stainless steel and titanium miniplates and screws. Eur J Oral Sci 103:46–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ungersboeck A, Perren SM, Pohler O (1994) Comparison of tissue reaction to implants made of beta titanium alloy and pure titanium. Experimental study on rabbits. J Mater Sci Mater Med 5:788–792Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ungersboeck A, Geret V, Pohler O, Schuetz M, Wuest W (1995) Tissue reaction to bone plates made of pure titanium: a prospective, quantitative clinical study. J Mater Sci Mater Med 6:223–229Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Uo M, Watari F, Yokoyama A, Matsuno H, Kawasaki T (2001) Tissue reaction around metal implants observed by X-ray scanning analytical microscopy. Biomaterials 22:677–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Tomlinson MJ, Gavrilovic J, Black J, Peoc’h M (2000) Dissemination of wear particles to the liver, spleen, and abdominal lymph nodes of patients with hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:457–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Villalba A, Elorza MA, Coll R (1993) Contamination of biological samples in metal determination. Clin Chim Acta 214:243–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Voggenreiter G, Leiting S, Brauer H, Leiting P, Majetschak M, Bardenheuer M, Obertacke U (2003) Immuno-inflammatory tissue reaction to stainless-steel and titanium plates used for internal fixation of long bones. Biomaterials 24:247–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zavanelli RA, Pessanha Henriques GE, Ferreira I, De Almeida Rollo JM (2000) Corrosion-fatigue life of commercially pure titanium and Ti-6Al-4V alloys in different storage environments. J Prosthet Dent 84:274–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zuolo ML, Walton RE (1997) Instrument deterioration with usage: nickel-titanium versus stainless steel. Quintessence Int 28:397–402PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. D. Krischak
    • 1
  • F. Gebhard
    • 1
  • W. Mohr
    • 2
  • V. Krivan
    • 3
  • A. Ignatius
    • 4
  • A. Beck
    • 1
  • N. J. Wachter
    • 1
  • P. Reuter
    • 5
  • M. Arand
    • 1
  • L. Kinzl
    • 1
  • L. E. Claes
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Traumatology, Hand and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  3. 3.Sektion Analytik und HöchstreinigungUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Orthopaedic Research and BiomechanicsUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  5. 5.Department of BiomaterialsUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations