Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Das Allergiepotenzial von Implantatwerkstoffen auf Titanbasis

Allergic potential of titanium implants

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, zu klären, ob in Reintitan oder in Titanlegierungen allergieauslösende Bestandteile nachweisbar sind.

Material und Methode

Es wurden von 5 internationalen Titanherstellern Rundscheiben zwischen 6 und 60 mm Durchmesser und 6 mm Dicke aus Reintitan, TiAl6Nb7 und TiAl6V4 einer Spektralanalyse unterzogen.

Ergebnisse

In allen Proben der Implantatwerkstoffe waren mit 0,012–0,034 Gew.-% geringe Nickelgehalte nachweisbar. Jodidtitan stellt mit 0,002 Gew.-% die Nachweisgrenze dar und ist somit als nickelfrei zu bezeichnen.

Schlussfolgerung

In allen Proben der Implantatwerkstoffe war Nickel nachweisbar. Diese niedrigen Gehalte an Nickel sind herstellungsprozessbedingt und vollständig im Gitter des Titans gelöst; sie könnten aber bei Patienten mit Nickelallergie ausreichen, um eine allergische Reaktion auszulösen. Diese wäre dann aber nicht direkt dem Titan oder seinen Legierungen, sondern der Nickelverunreinigung zuzuordnen. Weitere Untersuchungen über die Freisetzung der Legierungskomponenten und Reaktionsschwellen von Patienten sind erforderlich sowie—von Metallherstellerseite—zu alternativen Prozessen, um Reintitan und Titanlegierungen noch reiner bzw. nickelfrei herzustellen.

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this investigation is to evaluate the allergic potential of titanium and titanium alloys for surgical implant applications.

Materials and methods

Discs cut from rods supplied by five different titanium suppliers in several diameters were investigated. The samples were cp-Titanium as well as Ti6Al4 V and Ti6Al7Nb, 6 mm thick with a diameter of between 6 and 60 mm. The material was checked by optical spectral analysis.

Results

In all samples except iodidtitanium, a Nickel content of 0.012—0,034 wt% could be detected.

Conclusion

The low nickel content in the implant material results from the production process. The nickel atoms are in solid solution in the titanium lattice. Nickel allergic patients may develop hypersensitivity reactions even due to this low nickel content. Hence, this reaction may be falsely attributed to the titanium material itself. Measurements of ion concentration in the body are helpful for quantifying the maximum content of nickel in titanium materials for surgical implant applications. In addition, technical questions related to the production of nickel free titanium materials for allergic patients have to be solved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. ASTM F 67: Specification for unalloyed titanium for surgical implant applications

  2. ASTM F 136: Specification for wrought titanium-6aluminum-4vanadium ELI alloy for surgical implant applications

  3. ASTM F 1295: Specification for wrougth titanium-6aluminum-7niobium alloy for surgical implant applications

  4. ASTM F 1713: Specification for wrought titanium-13niobium-13zirconium alloy for surgical implant applications

  5. ASTM F 1813: Specification for wrought titanium-12molybdenum-6zirconium-2iron alloy for surgical implant applications

  6. ASTM F 2066: Specification for wrought titanium-15molybdenum alloy for surgical implant applications

  7. Barranco VP, Soloman H (1972) Eczematous dermatitis from nickel. JAMA 220: 1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Basketter DA, Whittle E, Monk B (2000) Possible allergy to complex titanium salt. Contact Dermatitis 42: 310–311

    Google Scholar 

  9. Benson MK, Goodwin PG, Brostoff J (1975) Metal sensitivity in patients with joint replacement arthroplasties. Br Med J 15: 374–375

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bircher AJ, Stern WB (2001) Allergic contact dermatitis from „titanium“ spectacle frames. Contact Dermatitis 45: 244–245

    Google Scholar 

  11. Black J (1992) Biological performance of materials. In: Allergic foreign-body response, Marcel Decker, New York, pp 184–199

  12. Breton JL, Louis JM, Garnier G (1992) Asthma caused by hard metals: responsibility of titanium. Presse Med 21: 997

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brown SA, Merritt K (1981) Metal allergy and metallurgy. In: Weinstein A, Gibbons D, Brown S, Ruff W (eds) Implant retrieval: Material and biological analysis. Special publication No. 601, NBS, Washington/DC, pp 299–322

  14. Carlsson AS, Magnusson B, Moller H (1980) Metal sensitivity in patients with metal-to-plastic total hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 51: 57–62

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cook SD, McCluskey LC, Martin PC, Haddad RJ Jr (1991) Inflammatory response in retrieved noncemented porous-coated implants. Clin Orthop 264: 209–222

    Google Scholar 

  16. Christiansen K, Holmes K, Zilko PJ (1979) Metal sensitivity causing loosened joint prosthesis. Ann Rheum Dis 38: 476–480

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cramers M, Lucht (1977) Metal sensitivity in patients treated for tibial fractures with plates of stainless steel. Acta Orthop Scand 48: 245–249

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cupps TR, Fauci A (1981) Hypersensitivity vasculitis. In: Smith LH Jr (ed) Major problems in internal medicine, vol XXI. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 50–70

  19. DIN 17850: Reintitan, Chemische Zusammensetzung

  20. Doerig MF, Odstrcilik E (2003) Gelenkspaarung Metall-Metall oder Keramik-Polyaethylen bei zementfreien Titanimplantaten der Hüfte. Ergibt Metasul nach 5–10 Jahren eine nachweisbare Reduktion der Abriebveränderungen? Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 141 (S1): 62

    Google Scholar 

  21. Duchna HW, Nowack U, Merget R, Muhr G, Schultze-Werninghaus G (1998) Prospektive Untersuchung zur Bedeutung der Kontaktsensibilisierung durch Metallimplantate. Zentralbl Chir 123: 1271–1276

    Google Scholar 

  22. Elves MW, Wilson JN, Scales JT, Kemp HB (1975) Incidence of metal sensitivity in patients with total joint replacements. Br Med J 15: 376–378

    Google Scholar 

  23. Farronato G, Tirafili C, Alicino C, Santoro F (2002) Titanium appliances for allergic patients. J Clin Orthod 36: 676–679

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goh CL (1985) Prevalance of contact allergy by sex, race and age. Contact Dermatitis 14: 237–240

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goodman SB (1996) Does the immune system play a role in loosening and osteolysis of total joint replacements? J Long Term Eff Med Implants 6: 91–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ (2001) Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A: 428–436

  27. Haug RH (1996) Retention of asymptomatic bone plates used for orthognathic surgery and facial fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54: 611–617

    Google Scholar 

  28. Holzwarth U (1993) Herstellung und Untersuchung von in der biomedizinischen Technik anwendbaren metallischen Werkstoffen mit niedrigem Elastizitätsmodul auf Basis Titan. Dissertation, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

  29. Holzwarth U (2001) Zementfreie Funktionsoberflächen für Titanimplantatwerkstoffe. Biomaterialien 2: 211–214

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kubba R, Taylor JS, Marks KE (1981) Cutaneous complications of orthopedic implants. A two-year prospective study. Arch Dermatol 117: 554–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lalor PA, Revell PA, Gray AB, Wright S, Railton GT, Freeman MA (1991) Sensitivity to titanium. A cause of implant failure? J Bone Joint Surg Br 73: 25–28

    Google Scholar 

  32. Malo JL, Cartier A, Doepner M, Nieboer E, Evans S, Dolovich J (1982) Occupational asthma caused by nickel sulfate. J Allergy Clin Immunol 69: 55–59

    Google Scholar 

  33. Matthew I, Frame JW (1998) Allergic responses to titanium. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 56: 1466–1467

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mayor MB, Merritt K, Brown SA (1980) Metal allergy and the surgical patient. Am J Surg 139: 477–479

    Google Scholar 

  35. McKenzie AW, Aitken CV, Ridsdill-Smith R (1967) Urticaria after insertion of Smith-Petersen Vitallium nail. Br Med J 570: 36

    Google Scholar 

  36. Menne T, Nieboer E (1989) Metal contact dermatitis: a common and potentially debilitating disease. Endeavour 13: 117–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Merritt K, Brown SA (1981) Metal sensitivity reactions to orthopedic implants. Int J Dermatol 20: 89–94

    Google Scholar 

  38. Merritt K, Brown SA (1996) Distribution of cobalt chromium wear and corrosion products and biologic reactions. Clin Orthop 329 [Suppl]: 233–243

    Google Scholar 

  39. Merritt K, Rodrigo JJ (1996) Immune response to synthetic materials. Sensitization of patients receiving orthopaedic implants. Clin Orthop 326: 71–79

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mitchell DL, Synnott SA, VanDercreek JA (1990) Tissue reaction involving an intraoral skin graft and CP titanium abutments: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5: 79–84

    Google Scholar 

  41. Möller H (1990) Nickel dermatitis: problems solved and unsolved. Contact Dermatitis 23: 217–220

    Google Scholar 

  42. Munro-Ashman D, Miller AJ (1976) Rejection of metal to metal prosthesis and skin sensitivity to cobalt. Contact Dermatitis 2: 65–67

    Google Scholar 

  43. Polak L, Turk JL, Frey JR (1973) Studies on contact hypersensitivity to chromium compounds. Prog Allergy 17: 145–226

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rodgers K, Klykken P, Jacobs J, Frondoza C, Tomazic V, Zelikoff J (1997) Immunotoxicity of medical devices. Symposium overview. Fundam Appl Toxicol 36: 1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Santavirta S, Konttinen YT, Hoikka V, Eskola A (1991) Immunopathological response to loose cementless acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73: 38–42

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schaldach M (1992) Verträglichkeit implantatgeeigneter alloplastischer Werkstoffe im Organismus. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol [Suppl I]: 27–39

  47. Schuh A, Thomas P, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G (2004) Bilaterale umschriebene Osteolyse nach zementierter Hüfttotalendoprothesenimplantation. Orthopäde 33: 727–731

    Google Scholar 

  48. Shirakawa T, Kusaka Y, Fujimura N, Goto S, Kato M, Heki S, Morimoto K (1989) Occupational asthma from cobalt sensitivity in workers exposed to hard metal dust. Chest 95: 29–37

    Google Scholar 

  49. Shirakawa T, Kusaka Y, Fujimura N, Kato M, Heki S, Morimoto K (1990) Hard metal asthma: cross immunological and respiratory reactivity between cobalt and nickel? Thorax 45: 267–271

    Google Scholar 

  50. Steinemann SG, Perren SM (1984) Titanium alloys as metallic biomaterials. Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Titanium in Munich, p 1327

  51. Suhonen R, Kanerva L (2001) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by palladium on titanium spectacle frames. Contact Dermatitis 44: 257–258

    Google Scholar 

  52. Summer B, Sander A, Przybilla B, Thomas P (2001) Molecular analysis of T-cell clonality with concomitant specific T-cell proliferation in vitro in nickel-allergic individuals. Allergy 56: 767–770

    Google Scholar 

  53. Swiontkowski MF, Agel J, Schwappach J, McNair P, Welch M (2001) Cutaneous metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic injuries. J Orthop Trauma 15: 86–89

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tan M, Suzuki H (1995) Usefulness of titanium implants for systemic contact dermatitis due to orthopaedic prostheses. Contact Dermatitis 33: 202

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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: 223–226

    Google Scholar 

  56. Thomas P (2003) Allergien durch Implantatwerkstoffe. Orthopäde 32: 60–64

    Google Scholar 

  57. Thomas P (2005) Impaired fracture healing and eczema from titanium based osteosynthesis, with corresponding T-cell hyperresponsiveness in vitro: A case of titanium hypersensitivity? Contact Dermatitis: im Druck

    Google Scholar 

  58. Thomas P, Thomas M, Summer B, Naumann T, Sander CA, Przybilla B (2000) Intolerance of osteosynthesis material: evidence of dichromate contact allergy with concomitant oligoklonal T-cell infiltrate and TH1-type cytokine expression in the peri-implantar tissue. Allergy 55: 969–972

    Google Scholar 

  59. Thull R (1991) Korrosionseigenschaften mit Titan-Niob-Oxinitrid beschichterter Dentallegierungen. DZZ 46: 712–717

    Google Scholar 

  60. Vernon-Roberts B, Freeman MAR (1976) Morphological and analytical studies of the tissues adjacent to joint prostheses: investigation into causes of loosening of prostheses. In: Schaldach M, Hohmann D (eds) Engineering in medicine, vol 1: Advances in artificial hip and knee joint technology. Springer, Stuttgart, pp 148–186

  61. Walsh G, Mitchell JW (2002) Free surface nickel in CE-marked and non-CE-marked spectacle frames. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 22: 166–171

    Google Scholar 

  62. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Hess T (1989) The significance of wear and material fatigue in loosening of hip prostheses. Orthopäde 18: 350–369

    Google Scholar 

  63. Willert HG, Buchhorn A, Fayyazi A, Lohmann CH (2000) Histopathologische Veränderungen bei Metall/Metall-Gelenken geben Hinweise auf eine zellvermittelte Überempfindlichkeit. Osteologie 9: 165–179

    Google Scholar 

  64. Willert HG, Buchhorn A, Fayyazi A, Lohmann CH (2001) Histopathological changes in tissues surrounding metal/metal joints—signs of delayed type of hypersensitivity (DTH)? In: Rieker C (ed) World Tribology Forum in Arthroplasty, pp 167–180

  65. Yamauchi R, Morita A, Tsuji T (2000) Pacemaker dermatitis from titanium. Contact Dermatitis 42: 52–53

    Google Scholar 

  66. Zwicker U (1974) Titan und Titanlegierungen, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, S 5–8

Download references

Interessenkonflikt:

Keine Angaben

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopädische Klinik Rummelsberg, Schwarzenbruck

    A. Schuh

  2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

    P. Thomas

  3. Zentrum für Werkstoffanalytik, Lauf GmbH, Lauf

    W. Kachler & J. Göske

  4. Institut für Werkstoffkunde und Werkstofftechnik, TU Clausthal-Zellerfeld

    L. Wagner

  5. Med-Titan®, Erlangen

    U. Holzwarth

  6. Lehrstuhl für Orthopädie mit Orthopädischer Chirurgie der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

    R. Forst

  7. Orthopädische Klinik Rummelsberg, Rummelsberg 71, 90592, Schwarzenbruck

    A. Schuh

Authors
  1. A. Schuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Kachler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Göske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. U. Holzwarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Forst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Schuh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schuh, A., Thomas, P., Kachler, W. et al. Das Allergiepotenzial von Implantatwerkstoffen auf Titanbasis. Orthopäde 34, 327–333 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-005-0764-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-005-0764-2

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation