4.8 Review

The two faces of metal ions: From implants rejection to tissue repair/regeneration

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 84, 期 -, 页码 262-275

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.046

关键词

Metal ions; Prosthetic debris; Immune response; Tissue regeneration; Adverse reaction; Therapeutic application

资金

  1. FCT/MEC
  2. FEDER through the PT2020 Partnership under the 4293 Unit ID
  3. YTAG project [PTDC/BIM-MED/1047/2012]
  4. [SFRH/BD/87516/2012]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/87516/2012] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paradigm of metallic ions as exclusive toxic agents is changing. During the last 60 years, knowledge about toxicological and immunological reactions to metal particles and ions has advanced considerably. Hip prostheses, namely metal-on-metal bearings, have prompted studies about excessive and prolonged exposure to prosthetic debris. In that context, the interactions of metal particles and ions with cells and tissues are mostly harmful, inducing immune responses that lead to osteolysis and implant failure. However, in the last decade, new strategies to promote immunomodulation and healing have emerged based on the unique properties of metallic ions. The atom-size and charge enable ions to interact with key macromolecules (e.g. proteins, nucleic acids) that affect cellular function. Moreover, these agents are inexpensive, stable and can be integrated in biomaterials, which may open new avenues for a novel generation of medical devices. Herein, orthopedic devices are discussed as models for adverse responses to metal ions, and debated together with the potential to use metal ions-based therapies, thus bridging the gap between unmet clinical needs and cutting-edge research. In summary, this review addresses the two faces of metallic ions, from pathological responses to innovative research strategies that use metal ions for regenerative medicine. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据