45S5/PEEK Coatings by Cold Gas Spray with In Vitro Bioactivity, Degradation, and Cellular Proliferation
-
Published:2024-02-07
Issue:4
Volume:33
Page:895-911
-
ISSN:1059-9630
-
Container-title:Journal of Thermal Spray Technology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:J Therm Spray Tech
Author:
Garrido Beatriz,Albaladejo-Fuentes Vicente,Dosta Sergi,Garcia-Giralt Natalia,Garcia-Cano Irene
Abstract
AbstractThis study evaluated the biological response of cold-sprayed coatings composed of bioactive glass 45S5 and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). The functional coatings were produced by cold gas spray (CGS) technology, a technique that allows the deposition of powders at significantly low temperatures, avoiding heat damage to polymeric surfaces. By CGS, blends with different ratios of bioactive glass and PEEK powders have been deposited onto PEEK substrates to improve the response of the bio-inert polymer. The bioactivity of the coatings when immersed in a simulated body fluid solution was evaluated by observation with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray diffraction (XRD). Results verify that bioactive glass particles in the composite coatings enhance their bioactivity. A degradation test was performed with Tris–HCl solution. From the results obtained by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and the weight loss of the samples, it was noticed that the degradation was directly related to the amount of glass in the coatings. Finally, the ability of bone-forming cells to adhere and proliferate on the coatings was evaluated. These experiments showed that the presence of glass particles does not cause a significant increase in cell proliferation. Combining a bioactive material with PEEK leads to forming a final component that provides suitable bioactivity to the final implant.
Funder
Universitat de Barcelona
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference57 articles.
1. P. Scolozzi, A. Martinez, and B. Jaques, Complex Orbito-Fronto-Temporal Reconstruction Using Computer-Designed PEEK Implant, J. Craniofac. Surg., 2007, 18(1), p 224-228. 2. S. Sarfraz, P.-H. Mäntynen, M. Laurila, S. Rossi, J. Leikola, M. Kaakinen, J. Suojanen, and J. Reunanen, Comparison of Titanium and PEEK Medical Plastic Implant Materials for Their Bacterial Biofilm Formation Properties, Polym. Basel Switzerland, 2022, 14(18), p 3862. 3. J Graham and J Peck, (2012) FDA Regulation of Polyaryletheretherketone Implants, PEEK Biomaterials Handbook, S. Kurtz, Ed., 1st ed., William Andrew, 277-292. 4. L. de Ruiter, K. Rankin, M. Browne, A. Briscoe, D. Janssen, and N. Verdonschot, Decreased Stress Shielding with a PEEK Femoral Total Knee Prosthesis Measured in Validated Computational Models, J. Biomech., 2021, 118, 110270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110270 5. Y.G. Koh, J.A. Lee, and K.T. Kang, Prediction of Wear on Tibial Inserts Made of UHMWPE PEEK and CFR-PEEK in Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Finite-Element Analysis, Lubricants, 2019, 7(4), p 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants7040030
|
|