Properties of biocomposites based on titanium scaffolds with a different porosity
Source abstract
Abstract
Open-porous titanium scaffolds have been widely investigated for orthopaedic and dental applications because of their ability to form composites via bone ingrowth into pores and promote implant fixation with mother bone. In this work, porous titanium scaffolds coated with a diamond-like carbon were produced, and their ability to form biocomposites was evaluated through in vivo experiments. Three types of the open-porous scaffolds made of spongy titanium granules (porosity 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5, Young’s modulus 4.4, 3.5 and 0.6 GPa) were implanted into a bone defect of sheep. Time dependences of the Young’s modulus of titanium scaffold–bone tissue biocomposites were determined through the measurement of Young’s modulus of the extracted scaffolds after 4, 8, 24 and 52 weeks of surgery. The Young’s modulus of biocomposite is dependent not only on the time of composite formation but also on the porosity of scaffold.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Titanium Alloys Microstructure and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (15)
Show source-provided references
1. Geetha M, Singh A K, Asokamani R and Gogia A K 2009 Prog. Mater. Sci. 54 39710.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.004 ↗
2. Cachinho S C P and Correia R N 2008 J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 19 45110.1007/s10856-006-0052-7 ↗
3. Lewis G 2013 J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 24 229310.1007/s10856-013-4998-y ↗
4. Bandyopadhyay A, Espana F, Krishna Balla V, Bose S, Ohgami Y and Davies N N 2010 Acta Biomater. 6 164010.1016/j.actbio.2009.11.011 ↗
5. Ryan G, Pandi A and Apatsidis D P 2006 Biomaterials 27 265110.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.12.002 ↗
6. Zhao C Y, Zhu X D and Yuan T 2010 Mater. Sci. Eng. C 30 9810.1016/j.msec.2009.09.004 ↗
7. Martin R B, Chapman M W, Sharkey N A, Zissimos S L, Bay B and Shors E C 1993 Biomaterials 14 34110.1016/0142-9612(93)90052-4 ↗
8. Rubshtein A P, Makarova E B, Rinkevich A B, Medvedeva D S, Yakovenkova L I and Vladimirov A B 2015 Mater. Sci. Eng. C 52 5410.1016/j.msec.2015.03.015 ↗
9. Trakhtenberg I S, Borisov A B, Novozhonov V I, Rubshtein A P, Vladimirov A B, Osipenko A V et al 2008 Phys. Met. Metallogr. 105 9210.1134/S0031918X08010109 ↗
10. Jaatinen J, Korhonen R, Pelttari A, Helminen H, Korhonen H and Lappalainen R 2011 Acta Orthop. 82 49910.3109/17453674.2011.579522 ↗
11. Fox K, Palamara J, Judge R and Greentree A D 2013 J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 24 84910.1007/s10856-013-4860-2 ↗
12. Rubstein A P, Makarova E B, Trakhtenberg I S, Kudryavtseva I P, Bliznets D G, Philippov Y I et al 2012 Diam. Relat. Mater. 22 12810.1016/j.diamond.2011.12.030 ↗
13. Reichert J C, Cipitria A, Epari D R, Saifzadeh S, Krishnakanth P and Berner A 2012 Sci. Transl. Med. 4 1419310.1126/scitranslmed.3003720 ↗
14. Efros A L 1982 Physics and geometry of disorder (Moscow: Nauka)
15. Odgaard A and Linde F 1991 J. Biomech. 24 69110.1016/0021-9290(91)90333-I ↗