The use of reinforcements to enhance mechanical properties of titanium such as hardness has been adopted by many researchers. Of these reinforcements, titanium boride has emerged as one of the most suitable reinforcements for titanium which is both chemically and mechanically compatible with the titanium matrix. Despite the extensive work conducted on these types of composites, very little is known about their biocompatibility which has so far precluded their use in bioapplications. The present paper investigates, for the first time, the biocompatibility of powder-processed titanium-titanium boride ( ) composites for use in medical and dental implants and basic studies on fibroblast attachment conducted to assess for this application. The work is intended to serve as an initial step towards understanding the bioresponse of these composites by evaluating cytotoxicity, cellular attachment and morphology, and hemolytic potential. Results indicate that fibroblasts attach, proliferate, and achieve confluency when in contact with the composites, exhibiting normal morphology. Furthermore, the cells show a favorable growth rate when cultured with the composite for 48 hours. The composite demonstrated excellent blood biocompatibility, with a low hemolysis level (0.12% ) when compared with CP Ti (0.17%) and Ti-6Al-4V (0.36%). These findings suggest that composite is biocompatible and further investigation into its suitability as a biomaterial should be considered. 1. Introduction Medical implants present a challenging set of mechanical and biocompatibility requirements. These devices must withstand large torques, compressive and shear forces during their normal loading conditions and require strong wear-resistant materials for good mechanical force transfer. Biological integration of the implant requires biocompatibility with both hard and soft tissues and prevention of bacterial adhesion, infection, and blood hemolysis [1]. Titanium (Ti) alloys such as Ti-6Al-4V and commercially pure titanium (CP Ti) have been widely used in medical implants due to their excellent biocompatibility and mechanical properties [2]. However, problems such as wear particle generation and the associated inflammatory response present a need for further improvement for biomedical applications [3]. Titanium composites present a viable solution and provide many benefits in terms of property improvements compared with unreinforced Ti. However, the search for a suitable reinforcement material for the titanium matrix that is both mechanically and chemically compatible had been a major
References
[1]
F.-Y. Teng, C.-L. Ko, H.-N. Kuo, et al., “A comparison of epithelial cells, fibroblasts, and osteoblasts in dental implant titanium topographies,” Bioinorganic Chemistry and Applications, vol. 2012, Article ID 687291, 9 pages, 2012.
[2]
M. Geetha, A. K. Singh, R. Asokamani, and A. K. Gogia, “Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants—a review,” Progress in Materials Science, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 397–425, 2009.
[3]
B. Ratner, Orthopedic Materals and Applications, Biomaterials Science, 2002.
[4]
K. Morsi and V. V. Patel, “Processing and properties of titanium-titanium boride (TiBw) matrix composites—a review,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 2037–2047, 2007.
[5]
X. Deng, B. R. Patterson, K. K. Chawla et al., “Microstructure/hardness relationship in a dual composite,” Journal of Materials Science Letters, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 707–709, 2002.
[6]
V. V. Patel, A. El-Desouky, J. E. Garay, and K. Morsi, “Pressure-less and current-activated pressure-assisted sintering of titanium dual matrix composites: effect of reinforcement particle size,” Materials Science and Engineering A, vol. 507, no. 1-2, pp. 161–166, 2009.
[7]
X. Deng, B. R. Patterson, K. K. Chawla et al., “Mechanical properties of a hybrid cemented carbide composite,” International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials, vol. 19, no. 4-6, pp. 547–552, 2001.
[8]
V. C. Nardone, J. R. Strife, and K. M. Prewo, “Microstructurally toughened particulate-reinforced aluminum matrix composites,” Metallurgical Transactions. A, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 171–182, 1991.
[9]
K. Morsi, A. M. K. Esawi, P. Borah, S. Lanka, A. Sayed, and M. Taher, “Properties of single and dual matrix aluminum-carbon nanotube composites processed via spark plasma extrusion (SPE),” Materials Science and Engineering A, vol. 527, no. 21-22, pp. 5686–5690, 2010.
[10]
A. Furuhashi, Y. Ayukawa, I. Atsuta, H. Okawachi, and K. Koyano, “The difference of fibroblast behavior on titanium substrata with different surface characteristics,” Odontology, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 199–205, 2012.
[11]
J. Guillem-Marti, L. Delgado, M. Godoy-Gallardo, M. Pegueroles, M. Herrero, and F. J. Gil, “Fibroblast adhesion and activation onto micro-machined titanium surfaces,” Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 770–780, 2013.
[12]
M. Hamdan, L. Blanco, A. Khraisat, and I. F. Tresguerres, “Influence of titanium surface charge on fibroblast adhesion,” Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 32–38, 2006.
[13]
C. Bates, V. Marino, N. L. Fazzalari, and M. Bartold, “Soft tissue attachment to titanium implants coated with growth factors,” Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 53–63, 2013.
[14]
B. Groessner-Schreiber, A. Neubert, W.-D. Müller, M. Hopp, M. Griepentrog, and K.-P. Lange, “Fibroblast growth on surface-modified dental implants: an in vitro study,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 591–599, 2003.
[15]
K. Morsi, V. V. Patel, K. S. Moon, and J. E. Garay, “Current-activated pressure-assisted sintering (CAPAS) and nanoindentation mapping of dual matrix composites,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 4050–4056, 2008.
[16]
American Society of Testing and Materials, “Direct contact cell culture evaluation of materials for medical devices,” ASTM F813-01, ASTM International, Conshohocken, Pa, USA, 2002.
[17]
American Society of Testing and Materials, “Agar diffusion cell culture screening for cytotoxicity,” ASTM Standard F895-84, ASTM International, Conshohocken, Pa, USA, 2002.
[18]
American Society of Testing and Materials, “Standard practice for assessment of hemolytic properties of materials,” ASTM 756-00, ASTM International, Conshohocken, Pa, USA, 2000.
[19]
M. Assad, A. Chernyshov, M. A. Leroux, and C.-H. Rivard, “A new porous titanium-nickel alloy: part 1. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity evaluation,” Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 225–237, 2002.
[20]
D. J. Wever, A. G. Veldhuizen, M. M. Sanders, J. M. Schakenraad, and J. R. Van Horn, “Cytotoxic, allergic and genotoxic activity of a nickel-titanium alloy,” Biomaterials, vol. 18, no. 16, pp. 1115–1120, 1997.
[21]
M. Morita, T. Hashimoto, K. Yamauchi, Y. Suto, T. Homma, and Y. Kimura, “Evaluation of biocompatibility for titanium-nickel shape memory alloy in vivo and in vitro environments,” Materials Transactions, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 352–360, 2007.
[22]
Y. Okazaki, S. Rao, Y. Ito, and T. Tateishi, “Corrosion resistance, mechanical properties: corrosion fatigue strength and cytocompatibility of new Ti alloys without A1 and V,” Biomaterials, vol. 19, no. 13, pp. 1197–1215, 1998.
[23]
J. E. Harkness and J. E. Wagner, The Biology and Medicine of Rabbits and Rodents, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Md, USA, 4th edition, 1995.
[24]
V. Biehl, T. Wack, S. Winter, U. T. Seyfert, and J. Breme, “Evaluation of the haemocompatibility of titanium based biomaterials,” Biomolecular Engineering, vol. 19, no. 2-6, pp. 97–101, 2002.
[25]
I. Dion, C. Baquey, J.-R. Monties, and P. Havlik, “Haemocompatibility of Ti6Al4V alloy,” Biomaterials, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 122–126, 1993.
[26]
M. F. López, A. Gutiérrez, and J. A. Jiménez, “In vitro corrosion behaviour of titanium alloys without vanadium,” Electrochimica Acta, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1359–1364, 2002.
[27]
R. R. Wang and Y. Li, “In vitro evaluation of biocompatibility of experimental titanium alloys for dental restorations,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 495–500, 1998.
