Biological properties of the intervertebral cages made of titanium containing a carbon-carbon composite covered with different polymers
Intervertebral cages are used in orthopaedics for stabilization of injured lumbar parts of vertebral columns. Our study provides preliminary results of tests of the biological properties of titanium cages with a variously modified carbon/carbon composite (C/C) core. This core was produced from a C/C composite modified by hydrogel materials based on poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (HEMA) enriched with 1% collagen or 35% methylmethacrylate or 30% terc-butylmethacrylamide.
We evaluated the adhesion of the cells to the tested material coating using an in vitro study of the metabolic activity and cytokine production of the cells (TNF-α, IL-8). We studied the biocompatibility of intervertebral cages coated with different copolymers under in vivo condition and in an implantation experiment in the porcine femurs.
Both in vitro and in vivo results revealed favourable biotolerance of the use system. Modification of the composite HEMA with the use of collagen seems to have a more positive effect on the new bone tissue formed around the implanted devices than HEMA copolymerized with methylmethacrylate or terc-butylmethacrylamide.
KeywordsPolymer Titanium Cage Methacrylate Metabolic Activity
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.J. Black, in “Biological Performance of Materials” (Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1999.Google Scholar
- 2.J. Black and G. Hastings, “Handbook of Biomaterial Properties” (Chapma and Hall, London, 1998).Google Scholar
- 3.S. Ramakrishna, J. Mayer, E. Wintermantel and Kam W. Leong, Comp. Sci. Techn. 61 (2001) 1189.Google Scholar
- 4.T. LeClercq, J. J. Kruse and D. Awasthi, “Hyperbook of Neurosurgery” (Nerve Center, LSU NEW Orleans, Louisiana, USA) Vol. IV, No. 1.Google Scholar
- 5.M. Assad, P. Jarzem, M. A. Leroux, C. Coillard, A. V. Chernyshov, S. Charette and Ch. Rivard, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2 (2003) 107.Google Scholar
- 6.H. J. Wilke, A. Kettler and L. Claes, Eur. Spine J. 5 (2000) 410.Google Scholar
- 7.P. Gillet, Rev. Med. Liége 9 (2000) 839.Google Scholar
- 8.T. Eastlund, Cell Transplant. 5 (1995) 455.Google Scholar
- 9.G. Savage, “Carbon-Carbon Composites” (Chapman and Hall, London, 1992) p. 356.Google Scholar
- 10.R. L. Price, M. C. Waid, K. M. Haberstroh and T. J. Webster, Biomaterials 11 (2003) 1877.Google Scholar
- 11.V. Pešáková, Z. Klézl, K. Balík and M. Adam, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 11 (2000) 793.Google Scholar
- 12.V. Pešáková, K. Smetana Jr., K. Balík, J. Hruška, M. Petrtýl, H. Hulejová and M. Adam, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 14 (2003) 531.Google Scholar
- 13.M. Štol, M. Tolar and M. Adam, Biomaterials 6 (1985) 538.Google Scholar
- 14.J. Lukas, V. Paleckova, J. Mokry, J. Karbanova and B. Dvorankova, Macromol. Symp. 172 (2001) 157.Google Scholar
- 15.ISO 10993-5: Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices.Google Scholar
- 16.CRC Series, in “Biocompatibility, Techniques of Biocompatibility Testing,” edited by David F. Williams (CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, USA) Vol. I.Google Scholar
- 17.N. Ishiguro, T. Kojima, T. Ito, S. Saga, H. Anma, K. Kurokouchi, Y. Iwahori, T. Iwase and H. Iwata, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 35 (1997) 399.Google Scholar