TL;DR: The next generation of biomaterials is combining these two properties, with the aim of developing materials that, once implanted, will help the body heal itself.
Abstract: Whereas second-generation biomaterials were designed to be either resorbable or bioactive, the next generation of biomaterials is combining these two properties, with the aim of developing materials that, once implanted, will help the body heal itself.
TL;DR: Although most patients experienced subcutaneous gas cavities caused by rapid implant corrosion, most patients had no pain and almost no infections were observed during the postoperative follow-up, and nearly all patients benefited from the treatment with magnesium implants.
TL;DR: The application of absorbable implants that would negate the need for subsequent removal could offer major clinical advantages for the fixation of fractures, both by the price of the absorbable implant compared with that of a conventional implant and by the rate of removal for any particular fracture.
Abstract: Implants for the internal fixation of fractures have a common property of being needed only temporarily, until the fracture has united. In accordance with this limited requirement, many trauma surgeons, including those of the AO-ASIF school, recommend that all metallic implants used for the fixation of fractures be removed in due course39. The protocol for removal ofthe hardware at trauma centers varies greatly, however, from routine removal from all patients to selective removal only from patients who have symptoms9. The adverse effects of retained metallic devices, the most important of which are osteopenia of cortical bone induced by protection from stress and corrosion, seem to be of minor importance when fractures confined to cancellous bone are managed and modern, biologically inert implants are used. Nevertheless, there will always be patients who request removal of an implant because of chronic irritation of the surrounding soft tissues by prominent hardware. The application of absorbable implants that would negate the need for subsequent removal could offer major clinical advantages for the fixation of fractures. Any financial benefits would be influenced both by the price of the absorbable implant compared with that of a conventional implant and by the rate of removal for any particular fracture.
TL;DR: The current in vivo experimental data may provide positive evidence for the surface chemistry-mediated biochemical bonding theory of oxidized bioactive implants, and the present study does not rule out potential synergy effects of the oxide thickness, micro-porous structure, crystal structure and surface roughness on improvements of bone responses to oxidizedBioactive implants.
TL;DR: The use of bioabsorbable implants in orthopaedic surgical procedures is becoming more frequent and these implants offer the advantages of gradual load transfer to the healing tissue, reduced need for hardware removal, and radiolucency, which facilitates postoperative radiographic evaluation.
Abstract: The use of bioabsorbable implants in orthopaedic surgical procedures is becoming more frequent. Advances in polymer science have allowed the production of implants with the mechanical strength necessary for such procedures. Bioabsorbable materials have been utilized for the fixation of fractures as well as for soft-tissue fixation. These implants offer the advantages of gradual load transfer to the healing tissue, reduced need for hardware removal, and radiolucency, which facilitates postoperative radiographic evaluation. Reported complications with the use of these materials include sterile sinus tract formation, osteolysis, synovitis, and hypertrophic fibrous encapsulation. Further study is required to determine the clinical situations in which these materials are of most benefit.