The limit of tolerable micromotion for implant osseointegration: a systematic review.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 05 2021
24 05 2021
Historique:
received:
07
01
2021
accepted:
04
05
2021
entrez:
25
5
2021
pubmed:
26
5
2021
medline:
6
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Much research effort is being invested into the development of porous biomaterials that enhance implant osseointegration. Large micromotions at the bone-implant interface impair this osseointegration process, resulting in fibrous capsule formation and implant loosening. This systematic review compiled all the in vivo evidence available to establish if there is a universal limit of tolerable micromotion for implant osseointegration. The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42020196686). Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for studies containing terms relating to micromotion and osseointegration. The mean value of micromotion for implants that osseointegrated was 32% of the mean value for those that did not (112 ± 176 µm versus 349 ± 231 µm, p < 0.001). However, there was a large overlap in the data ranges with no universal limit apparent. Rather, many factors were found to combine to affect the overall outcome including loading time, the type of implant and the material being used. The tables provided in this review summarise these factors and will aid investigators in identifying the most relevant micromotion values for their biomaterial and implant development research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34031476
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90142-5
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-90142-5
pmc: PMC8144379
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
10797Références
Pabinger, C., Lothaller, H. & Geissler, A. Utilization rates of knee-arthroplasty in OECD countries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 23, 1664–1673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2015.05.008 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2015.05.008
pubmed: 26028142
Irandoust, S. & Müftü, S. The interplay between bone healing and remodeling around dental implants. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–10 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60735-7
Barnes, S. C., Clasper, J. C., Bull, A. M. & Jeffers, J. R. Micromotion and push-out evaluation of an additive manufactured implant for above-the-knee amputees. J. Orthop. Res. 37, 2104–2111 (2019).
pubmed: 31166039
doi: 10.1002/jor.24389
Trisi, P. et al. Implant micromotion is related to peak insertion torque and bone density. Clin. Oral. Implant Res. 20, 467–471 (2009).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01679.x
Han, S. et al. Micromotion and migration of cementless tibial trays under functional loading conditions. J. Arthroplasty 36, 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.017 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.017
pubmed: 32741712
Haïat, G., Wang, H.-L. & Brunski, J. Effects of biomechanical properties of the bone-implant interface on dental implant stability: from in silico approaches to the patient’s mouth. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 16, 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-104854 (2014).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-104854
pubmed: 24905878
Winter, W., Klein, D. & Karl, M. Micromotion of dental implants: basic mechanical considerations. J. Med. Eng. 265412–265412, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/265412 (2013).
doi: 10.1155/2013/265412
Trisi, P., Berardini, M., Falco, A. & Vulpiani, M. P. Effect of implant thread geometry on secondary stability, bone density, and bone-to-implant contact: a biomechanical and histological analysis. Implant Dent. 24, 384–391 (2015).
pubmed: 25939083
Ellenrieder, M., Souffrant, R., Schulze, C., Mittelmeier, W. & Bader, R. Micromotion and subsidence of a cementless conical fluted stem depending on femoral defect size – A human cadaveric study. Clin. Biomech. 80, 105202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105202 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105202
Apostu, D., Lucaciu, O., Berce, C., Lucaciu, D. & Cosma, D. Current methods of preventing aseptic loosening and improving osseointegration of titanium implants in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a review. J. Int. Med. Res. 46, 2104–2119 (2018).
pubmed: 29098919
doi: 10.1177/0300060517732697
Shah, F. A., Thomsen, P. & Palmquist, A. Osseointegration and current interpretations of the bone-implant interface. Acta Biomater. 84, 1–15 (2019).
pubmed: 30445157
doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.018
Piuzzi, N. S. Patient-reported outcome measures (pain, function, and quality of life) after aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 102, e114 (2020).
pubmed: 33086349
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.01155
Raffa, M. L., Nguyen, V.-H. & Haiat, G. Micromechanical modeling of the contact stiffness of an osseointegrated bone–implant interface. Biomed. Eng. Online 18, 1–18 (2019).
doi: 10.1186/s12938-019-0733-3
Galbusera, F. et al. Biomechanics of sacropelvic fixation: a comprehensive finite element comparison of three techniques. Eur. Spine J. 29, 295–305 (2020).
pubmed: 31773275
doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06225-5
Xie, S. et al. A finite element analysis of tibial tritanium cones without stems in varying bone defects. Knee 27, 656–666 (2020).
pubmed: 32563420
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.02.019
Chanda, S., Mukherjee, K., Gupta, S. & Pratihar, D. K. A comparative assessment of two designs of hip stem using rule-based simulation of combined osseointegration and remodelling. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 234, 118–128 (2020).
pubmed: 31774362
doi: 10.1177/0954411919890998
de Barros e Lima Bueno, R., Dias, A. P., Ponce, K. J., Brunski, J. B. & Nanci, A. System for application of controlled forces on dental implants in rat maxillae: influence of the number of load cycles on bone healing. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B 108, 965–975 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34449
Trisi, P., Falco, A. & Berardini, M. Single-drill implant induces bone corticalization during submerged healing: an in vivo pilot study. Int. J. Implant Dentistry 6, 1–6 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s40729-019-0198-y
Chen, J., Xiao, Z., Yangpeng, S., Deng, F. & Zhiguang, Z. Production of inter-connective porous dental implants by computer-aided design and metal three-dimensional printing. J. Biomater. Appl. 34, 1227–1238 (2020).
pubmed: 31918619
doi: 10.1177/0885328219899523
Floerkemeier, T. et al. Greater early migration of a short-stem total hip arthroplasty is not associated with an increased risk of osseointegration failure: 5th-year results from a prospective RSA study with 39 patients, a follow-up study. Acta Orthop. 91, 266–271 (2020).
pubmed: 32106733
pmcid: 8023937
doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1732749
Jørgensen, P. B. et al. Higher early proximal migration of hemispherical cups with electrochemically applied hydroxyapatite (BoneMaster) on a porous surface compared with porous surface alone: A randomized RSA study with 53 patients. Acta Orthop. 91, 26–32 (2020).
pubmed: 31698977
doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1687860
O’Rourke, D. & Taylor, M. Patient and surgical variability in the primary stability of cementless acetabular cups: a finite element study. J. Orthop. Res. 38, 1515–1522 (2020).
pubmed: 32086833
doi: 10.1002/jor.24636
Søballe, K., Mouzin, O. R., Kidder, L. A., Overgaard, S. & Bechtold, J. E. The effects of hydroxyapatite coating and bone allograft on fixation of loaded experimental primary and revision implants. Acta Orthop. Scand. 74, 239–247 (2003).
pubmed: 12899541
pmcid: 4495908
doi: 10.1080/00016470308540836
Leucht, P. et al. Effect of mechanical stimuli on skeletal regeneration around implants. Bone 40, 919–930 (2007).
pubmed: 17175211
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2006.10.027
Manley, P. A., Vanderby, R. Jr., Kohles, S., Markel, M. D. & Heiner, J. P. Alterations in femoral strain, micromotion, cortical geometry, cortical porosity, and bony ingrowth in uncemented collared and collarless prostheses in the dog. J. Arthroplasty 10, 63–73 (1995).
pubmed: 7730832
doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80102-0
Ovesy, M., Voumard, B. & Zysset, P. A nonlinear homogenized finite element analysis of the primary stability of the bone–implant interface. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 17, 1471–1480 (2018).
pubmed: 29858707
doi: 10.1007/s10237-018-1038-3
Ghoul, W. E. & Chidiac, J. J. Prosthetic requirements for immediate implant loading: a review. J. Prosthodontics Implant Esthetic Reconstruct. Dentistry 21, 141–154 (2012).
van Arkel, R. J., Ghouse, S., Milner, P. E. & Jeffers, J. R. T. Additive manufactured push-fit implant fixation with screw-strength pull out. J. Orthop. Res. 36, 1508–1518. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23771 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/jor.23771
pubmed: 29023901
Kawahara, H. et al. Osseointegration under immediate loading: biomechanical stress–strain and bone formation–resorption. Implant Dent. 12, 61–68 (2003).
pubmed: 12704958
doi: 10.1097/01.ID.0000034394.75768.E3
Vandamme, K. et al. Histodynamics of bone tissue formation around immediately loaded cylindrical implants in the rabbit. Clin. Oral. Implant Res. 18, 471–480 (2007).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01339.x
Goodman, S., Wang, J. S., Doshi, A. & Aspenberg, P. Difference in bone ingrowth after one versus two daily episodes of micromotion: experiments with titanium chambers in rabbits. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 27, 1419–1424 (1993).
pubmed: 8263004
doi: 10.1002/jbm.820271109
Aspenberg, P., Goodman, S., Toksvig-Larsen, S., Ryd, L. & Albrektsson, T. Intermittent micromotion inhibits bone ingrowth: titanium implants in rabbits. Acta Orthop. Scand. 63, 141–145 (1992).
pubmed: 1590046
doi: 10.3109/17453679209154809
Bragdon, C. R. et al. Differences in stiffness of the interface between a cementless porous implant and cancellous bone in vivo in dogs due to varying amounts of implant motion. J. Arthroplasty 11, 945–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80136-7 (1996).
doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80136-7
pubmed: 8986573
Duyck, J. et al. The influence of micro-motion on the tissue differentiation around immediately loaded cylindrical turned titanium implants. Arch. Oral. Biol. 51, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2005.04.003 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2005.04.003
pubmed: 15922992
Goodman, S. B., Aspenberg, P., Song, Y., Regula, D. & Lidgren, L. Intermittent micromotion and polyethylene particles inhibit bone ingrowth into titanium chambers in rabbits. J. Appl. Biomater. 6, 161–165 (1995).
pubmed: 7492805
doi: 10.1002/jab.770060303
Goodman, S. B., Song, Y., Doshi, A. & Aspenberg, P. Cessation of strain facilitates bone formation in the micromotion chamber implanted in the rabbit tibia. Biomaterials 15, 889–893 (1994).
pubmed: 7833435
doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(94)90112-0
Goodman, S., Toksvig-Larsen, S. & Aspenberg, P. Ingrowth of bone into pores in titanium chambers implanted in rabbits: effect of pore cross-sectional shape in the presence of dynamic shear. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 27, 247–253 (1993).
pubmed: 8436582
doi: 10.1002/jbm.820270215
Jakobsen, T., Kold, S., Baas, J., Søballe, K. & Rahbek, O. Sheep hip Arthroplasty model of failed implant Osseointegration. Open Orthopaedics J. 9, 525 (2015).
doi: 10.2174/1874325001509010525
Jakobsen, T. et al. Topical zoledronic acid decreases micromotion induced bone resorption in a sheep arthroplasty model. BMC Musculoskel Dis. 18, 1–7 (2017).
doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1802-z
Jasty, M. et al. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 79, 707–714 (1997).
pubmed: 9160943
doi: 10.2106/00004623-199705000-00010
Overgaard, S., Søballe, K., Josephsen, K., Hansen, E. & Bünger, C. Role of different loading conditions on resorption of hydroxyapatite coating evaluated by histomorphometric and stereological methods. J. Orthop. Res. 14, 888–894 (1996).
pubmed: 8982130
doi: 10.1002/jor.1100140607
Søballe, K., Hansen, E. S., Rasmussen, B. H., Jørgensen, P. H. & Bünger, C. Tissue ingrowth into titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated implants during stable and unstable mechanical conditions. J. Orthop. Res. 10, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100100216 (1992).
doi: 10.1002/jor.1100100216
pubmed: 1311039
Søballe, K., Brockstedt-Rasmussen, H., Hansen, E. S. & Bünger, C. Hydroxyapatite coating modifies implant membrane formation: controlled micromotion studied in dogs. Acta Orthop. Scand. 63, 128–140 (1992).
pubmed: 1590045
doi: 10.3109/17453679209154808
Vandamme, K. et al. The effect of micro-motion on the tissue response around immediately loaded roughened titanium implants in the rabbit. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 115, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2007.00416.x (2007).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2007.00416.x
pubmed: 17305713
Vandamme, K., Naert, I., Vander Sloten, J., Puers, R. & Duyck, J. Effect of implant surface roughness and loading on peri-implant bone formation. J. Periodontol. 79, 150–157 (2008).
pubmed: 18166105
doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.060413
Vandamme, K. et al. Influence of controlled immediate loading and implant design on peri-implant bone formation. J. Clin. Periodontol. 34, 172–181 (2007).
pubmed: 17309592
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.01014.x
Pilliar, R. M., Lee, J. M. & Maniatopoulos, C. Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 108–113 (1986).
Trisi, P., Berardini, M., Falco, A., Sandrini, E. & Vulpiani, M. P. A new highly hydrophilic electrochemical implant titanium surface: a histological and biomechanical Vivo: Study. Implant Dent. 26, 429–437 (2017).
pubmed: 28492424
doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000605
Trisi, P., Berardini, M., Falco, A. & Podaliri Vulpiani, M. New Osseodensification implant site preparation method to increase bone density in low-density bone: in vivo evaluation in sheep. Implant Dent. 25, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000358 (2016).
doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000358
pubmed: 26584202
pmcid: 4770273
Trisi, P., Berardini, M., Falco, A. & Podaliri Vulpiani, M. Validation of value of actual micromotion as a direct measure of implant micromobility after healing (secondary implant stability). An in vivo histologic and biomechanical study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 27, 1423–1430. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12756 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/clr.12756
pubmed: 26727557
Engh, C. A. et al. Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat R, 13–29 (1992).
Breding, K. et al. The effect of hydroxyapatite nanocrystals on osseointegration of titanium implants: an <i>In Vivo</i> rabbit study. Int. J. Dentistry https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/171305 (2014).
doi: 10.1155/2014/171305
Meirelles, L. et al. Nano hydroxyapatite structures influence early bone formation. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., Part A 87A, 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.31744 (2008).
doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31744
Robling, A. G., Burr, D. B. & Turner, C. H. Recovery periods restore mechanosensitivity to dynamically loaded bone. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 3389 (2001).
pubmed: 11606612
doi: 10.1242/jeb.204.19.3389
Saxon, L. K., Robling, A. G., Alam, I. & Turner, C. H. Mechanosensitivity of the rat skeleton decreases after a long period of loading, but is improved with time off. Bone 36, 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2004.12.001 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2004.12.001
pubmed: 15777679
Parithimarkalaignan, S. & Padmanabhan, T. Osseointegration: an update. J. Indian Prosthodontic Soc. 13, 2–6 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s13191-013-0252-z
Kohli, N. et al. Bone remodelling in vitro: Where are we headed?:-A review on the current understanding of physiological bone remodelling and inflammation and the strategies for testing biomaterials in vitro. Bone 110, 38–46 (2018).
pubmed: 29355746
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2018.01.015
Wazen, R. M. et al. Micromotion-induced strain fields influence early stages of repair at bone–implant interfaces. Acta Biomater 9, 6663–6674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.01.014 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.01.014
pubmed: 23337705
pmcid: 3622828
Simmons, C. A., Meguid, S. A. & Pilliar, R. M. Mechanical regulation of localized and appositional bone formation around bone-interfacing implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 55, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(200104)55:1%3c63::AID-JBM90%3e3.0.CO;2-V (2001).
doi: 10.1002/1097-4636(200104)55:1<63::AID-JBM90>3.0.CO;2-V
pubmed: 11426399
Raffa, M. L., Nguyen, V.-H., Hernigou, P., Flouzat-Lachaniette, C.-H. & Haiat, G. Stress shielding at the bone-implant interface: Influence of surface roughness and of the bone-implant contact ratio. J. Orthop. Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24840 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/jor.24840
pubmed: 32852064
Simmons, C. A., Meguid, S. A. & Pilliar, R. M. Differences in osseointegration rate due to implant surface geometry can be explained by local tissue strains. J. Orthop. Res. 19, 187–194 (2001).
pubmed: 11347689
doi: 10.1016/S0736-0266(00)90006-8
Claes, L. E. & Heigele, C. A. Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J. Biomech. 32, 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00153-5 (1999).
doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00153-5
pubmed: 10093025
Carter, D. R., Beaupré, G. S., Giori, N. J. & Helms, J. A. Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1976–2007(355), S41–S55 (1998).
doi: 10.1097/00003086-199810001-00006
Perren, S. M. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures: the scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 84, 1093–1110 (2002).
pubmed: 12463652
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.84B8.0841093
Geris, L., Vander Sloten, J. & Van Oosterwyck, H. In silico biology of bone modelling and remodelling: regeneration. Philosophical Trans. Royal Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 367, 2031–2053 (2009).
Amor, N., Geris, L., Vander Sloten, J. & Van Oosterwyck, H. Modelling the early phases of bone regeneration around an endosseous oral implant. Comput. Methods Biomed. 12, 459–468 (2009).
doi: 10.1080/10255840802687392
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. Introduction Meta Anal. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386 (2009).
doi: 10.1002/9780470743386
Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 (2021).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924