Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Rapid Fire: Raw Materials Advancements - OMTEC 2017

2,250 views

Published on

Innovation in orthopaedics is linked to the adoption of new materials and new manufacturing processes for established materials. This rapid-fire presentation profiles the properties, indications and manufacturing processes that advance the use of different materials.

Individual topics that will be covered include: Polymers: R&D support, Bio-absorbable metals, Modified implant surfaces and Titanium Injection Molding

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Rapid Fire: Raw Materials Advancements - OMTEC 2017

  1. 1. Adam Griebel R&D, Fort Wayne Metals Absorbable Metals OMTEC 2017 – Raw Material Advancements
  2. 2. Why am I here? At Fort Wayne Metals, research and development are keys to the future. Because the industries we serve are rapidly changing, we must allocate sufficient resources to develop new products and processes. We are also committed to supporting our customers’ product development through sample orders and research projects.
  3. 3. Why do we want Absorbable Metals?
  4. 4. Absorbable metals may… • Reduce or eliminate: – Secondary removal operations – Stress shielding – Long term complications – Allergic reactions • Offer higher strength and toughness over current absorbable implants • Improve pediatric care
  5. 5. Envisioned orthopedic applications • Screws • Plate & screw systems – Maxillofacial, hand • Cerclage • K-wires/pins/ESIN • Staples • Spinal fusion By Júlio Reis - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=322974
  6. 6. What are Absorbable Metals?
  7. 7. Nutrient Metals
  8. 8. Nutrient Metals Daily Allowance1: 10-20 mg 15 mg 700 mg 1Y.F. Zheng et al. / Materials Science and Engineering R 77 (2014) 1-34
  9. 9. What’s old is new again • Magnesium wire for ligatures in 18781 • Significant Mg usage up through 1940s2 1. E. Huse, "Magnesium Ligatures," Chic. Med. J. Exam, 37 (1878), 171–172. 2. M.G. Seelig, "A study of magnesium wire as an absorbable suture and ligature material," Archives of Surgery, 8 (1924), 669–680.
  10. 10. Ideal Progression after Implantation D Zhao et al. / Biomaterials 112 (2017) 287-302
  11. 11. Corrosion Mechanism Y.F. Zheng et al. / Materials Science and Engineering R 77 (2014) 1-34
  12. 12. Iron: corrosion too slow • Ø1.6 mm pins • Rat femur • 12 months
  13. 13. Zinc: faster corroding, but… Bowen et al., Advanced Materials, 2013 • 250 µm wire • Rat aorta • 6 months
  14. 14. Magnesium: the best bet T Kraus et al. / Acta Biomaterialia 8 (2012) 1230-1238 • Ø1.6 mm pins • Rat femur • 24 weeks
  15. 15. Mg screws in the clinic 6 weeks 3 months 8 months 17 months Biber, Trauma Case Reports, 2017 • Syntellix • CE Marking for Magnezix® compression screw in 2013
  16. 16. Mg screws in the clinic Biber, Trauma Case Reports, 201717 months6 weeks • Syntellix • CE Marking for Magnezix® compression screw in 2013
  17. 17. Mg screws in the clinic Pre-op T = 0 T = 6 mo T = 1 yr Lee et al, PNAS 113 (2016) 716-721
  18. 18. Designing with Magnesium What is important to consider?
  19. 19. Primary considerations • Mechanical – Strength (lower) – Ductility (lower)
  20. 20. Primary considerations • Mechanical – Strength (lower) – Ductility (lower)
  21. 21. Primary considerations • Mechanical • Corrosion – In Vitro ≠ In Vivo – Rate + Type – Influence of Load • Stress-Corrosion Cracking • Corrosion fatigue H. Kalb et al. / Corrosion Science 57 (2012) 122–130
  22. 22. Primary considerations • Mechanical • Corrosion • Biological – Cell attachment/Cytotoxicity – Corrosion products – Rare earths or Aluminum? J.E. Schaffer et al. / Acta Biomaterialia xxx (2012) xxx–xxx Turansyaka et al, Materials 2016, 9, 811
  23. 23. Primary considerations • Mechanical • Corrosion • Biological • Intellectual – Crowded IP landscape
  24. 24. Magnesium Development at Fort Wayne Metals
  25. 25. Mg @ Fort Wayne Metals • 4+ years Mg processing research – Record strength levels – Developing towards commercial production • Internal and customer-directed research • Experience with 20+ alloys • Cold work drives strength
  26. 26. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  27. 27. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  28. 28. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  29. 29. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  30. 30. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  31. 31. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  32. 32. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  33. 33. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  34. 34. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  35. 35. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  36. 36. Alloy Example: Resoloy® • Mg-Rare Earth alloy (vascular indication) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50dissolvedMg2+[mg/mm2] time (h) 500°C 450°C 400°C 50% CW 350°C 250°C t = 0 hrs t = 45 hrs Resoloy® is a registered trademark of MeKo, Sarstedt, Germany
  37. 37. Future Directions • Continue towards commercial scale • Cold-work impact on corrosion • Influence of coatings & surface modifications • Device-specific property tuning
  38. 38. In Summary • Absorbable metals can offer real benefits • Magnesium is most promising for orthopedic applications • Inquiries: adam_griebel@fwmetals.com
  39. 39. Biocompatibility of Titanium MIM
  40. 40. Praxis Overview • Contract manufacturer of titanium components • Solely focus on titanium PM • Manufacturing implantable components since 2008 • ISO 13485 Certified | Production and Design • FDA Registered OMTEC 2017
  41. 41. Markets OMTEC 2017
  42. 42. Pros & Cons of MIM implants • Supply chain / purchasing • Cost savings! • Product development • Design flexibility • Regulatory / validation • New process • Density and potential pores • New materials • Processing aids OMTEC 2017
  43. 43. Material Specifications Standard Element / Property ASTM F2885-11 ASTM F136-13 MIM Wrought Nitrogen 0.05% max 0.05% max Carbon 0.08% max 0.08% max Hydrogen 0.015% max 0.012% max Iron 0.30% max 0.25% max Oxygen 0.20% max 0.13% max Aluminum 5.5 – 6.75% 5.5 – 6.5% Vanadium 3.5 – 4.5% 3.5 – 4.5% Yttrium 0.005% N/A Titanium* Balance Balance Ultimate Tensile Strength 900 MPa min 860 MPa min Yield Strength 830 MPa min 795 MPa min Elongation 10% min 10% min Reduction of Area 15% min 25% min OMTEC 2017
  44. 44. Praxis MIM Ti-6Al-4V Property ASTM F2885-11 Requirement Capability (Ppk) Nitrogen <0.05 5.17 Carbon <0.08 2.38 Hydrogen <0.015 2.03 Iron <0.30 2.73 Oxygen <0.20 1.58 Aluminum 5.5 - 6.75 1.87 Vanadium 3.5 – 4.5 6.25 Yttrium <0.005 below detection limits Titanium Balance Not required Long term capability Near 6σ Process capability Property ASTM F2885 Min. Requirement Min. Result Ppk Result UTS (ksi) 130 139.0 25.29 Yield (ksi) 120 121.8 1.6 Elongation (%) 10 18 3.2 Reduction in Area (%) 15 30 3.14 OMTEC 2017
  45. 45. Praxis MIM Ti-6Al-4V Property ASTM F2885 Requirement Min. Result Ppk Result Final Density (%) 98 min 99.81 5.63 As-Sintered >95% dense HIP’d ~100% dense OMTEC 2017
  46. 46. ‘Net-shape’ MIM Process Process Raw materials & processing aids Feedstock formulation Powders & binders Injection molding Mold releases Debinding Solvents Sintering Ceramics & process gases Recurring questions: How do you know all the binder is out? What about residuals? Is final chemistry really sufficient? OMTEC 2017
  47. 47. Beyond ‘net-shape’ MIM Potential secondary operation Processing materials CNC machining Cutting tools & cutting fluids Polishing & grinding Media & compounds Passivation & anodization Acids & solvents OMTEC 2017
  48. 48. Remove the concern, reduce the risk… Consistent hesitation from medical OEMs and potential significant delays Solution Conduct testing and create an FDA master file that addresses their concerns OMTEC 2017
  49. 49. Guidance – ISO 10993 OMTEC 2017
  50. 50. Overview of testing for FDA master file Risk assessment • Raw material properties • Manufacturing material properties • Manufacturing methods • Final MIM component composition and physical properties • Biocompatibility of MIM components • Sterilization compatibility – not included OMTEC 2017
  51. 51. Test results Cytotoxicity • The quality of being toxic to cells • Test: Minimal Essential Media (MEM) Elution test • Used to determine cytotoxicity of extractable substances • Cell monolayers are used to determine degree of cellular destruction • Score 0-4: no effect to complete destruction • Results • ‘0’ – Passed, no cell degradation OMTEC 2017
  52. 52. Test results Sensitization • Allergic reaction of an irritant • Test: Guinea Pig Maximization Sensitization Test • Used to determine dermal sensitization reaction • 34 guinea pigs, 22 in test group, 12 in control group • Score 0-3: no reaction to swelling • Results • ‘0’ – Passed, no sensitization OMTEC 2017
  53. 53. Test results Irritation or intracutaneous reactivity • Irritation reaction when injected intracutaneously • Test: Intracutaneous reactivity Irritation test in rabbits • Tissue reaction (erytherma and edema) with 2 solutions containing saline or cottonseed oil • 3 rabbits, 5 sites per rabbit @ 24, 48 & 72 hrs after dose administration • Score 0-4 for both erytherma & edema: total max score of 8 • Results • ‘0’ for saline and ‘0.1’ for cottonseed oil • Passed, no irritation OMTEC 2017
  54. 54. Test results Acute systemic toxicity • Systemic toxicity of leachable compounds from test article • Test: Medical device acute systemic toxicity test in mice • 2 solutions containing saline or cottonseed oil • 20 mice, 5 per test group, 2 control and 2 extract groups • Classification: no side effects to mortality • Results • Passed, ‘no side effects’ Note: subacute/subchronic toxicity tests were not conducted OMTEC 2017
  55. 55. Test results Genotoxicity • Destructive effect on a cell’s genetic material (DNA, RNA) • Test: Ames Test • Determines mutagenic activity of a solid test article extract by exposing a large number of test organisms to the extract fluid in agar plates • Results: calculated using a validated computer program • Results • Passed, ‘extracts did not meet the criteria for a potential mutagen’ OMTEC 2017
  56. 56. Test results Genotoxicity • Destructive effect on a cell’s genetic material (DNA, RNA) • Test: Chromosome aberration assay • Determines if device causes structural chromosome aberrations in Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells • Positive control and test article compared to negative control using Chi-Square test • Results calculated using a validated computer program • Results • Passed, ‘test article is not considered to be genotoxic when exposed to CHO cells’ OMTEC 2017
  57. 57. Test results Implantation • Test: Rabbit tibia implant – 13 wk & 26 wk • Determines if medical device surgically implanted in rabbit tibia produces a local tissue reaction • 6 rabbits (each test): test article versus control (HDPE) • Irritation ranking: 0-4 • Results • Passed, ‘test article did not cause any tissue irritation; considered a non-irritant and is considered biocompatible’ OMTEC 2017
  58. 58. Thank you OMTEC 2017 Jobe Piemme Vice President, Business Development Praxis Technology jpiemme@praxisti.com 518-812-0112
  59. 59. Jeff Tyber, MS: CEO/President Dan Hickey, PhD: Postdoctoral Scientist Providing Rapid Access to Portfolio Enhancing, Regulatory Approved, Orthopedic Implants Surface Modification and Implants
  60. 60. CONFIDENTIAL 61 Device Evolution – History in Spine Development Paradigm → Form, Fit, and Function (Cause and Effect = Iteration) Cylindrical Cages (1994) PEEK/Carbon Fiber (1999) PEEK (2003) Williams et. Al., American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2005, 26 (8) 2057-2066 Walsh, WR, et al., The Spine Journal, 15:5, 2015, 1041-1049
  61. 61. CONFIDENTIAL 62 Device Evolution – Function and Biologics Development Paradigm → Form, Fit, and Function + Bulk Material + Surface Modification (Biological Interaction) Williams et. Al., American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2005, 26 (8) 2057-2066 Walsh, WR, et al., The Spine Journal, 15:5, 2015, 1041-1049 Titanium Modified (2008) Composite PEEK (2012) 3D Printed (2014)
  62. 62. CONFIDENTIAL 63 New Design Paradigm • Bulk Mechanical Properties • Nano-structured implants resemble natural tissues, and provide more control over biological interactions • Types of surface modification – Micro/Nano-fabrication (e.g. lithography) – Mechanical (e.g. shot peening) – Subtractive (e.g. etching) – Additive (e.g. coating) Today’s Implant 0 6 6 4 2 0 4 2 0 microns microns 6microns 1.3 0 6 4 2 0 microns 6 4 2 0microns 0 1.3 microns Nano-structured Implant T. J. Webster, in Advances in Chemical Engineering Vol. 27, Academic Press, NY, pgs. 125-166, 2001.
  63. 63. CONFIDENTIAL 64 Biomaterial Interactions In Vivo • Biomaterials introduced into the body are immediately surrounded by a protein corona • Proteins respond to stimuli at the nano-scale • The specific proteins that attach depend on the surface properties of the material (energy, roughness, chemistry) T. J. Webster, Nanotek Expo, 2013
  64. 64. CONFIDENTIAL 65 Nature and Polymers - Nano-Fabrication The pillared nanostructure of cicada wings is inherently antimicrobial (regardless of surface chemistry)1 1. Ivanova et al., Small, 2012 2. Pogodin et al. Biophys. J. 2013, 104, 835-840. 3. Dickson et al. Biointerphases. 2015, 10, 021010. E. Coli on flat PMMA (left) and nanopillared PMMA (right), fabricated using nanoimprint lithography3
  65. 65. CONFIDENTIAL 66 Stainless Steel - Mechanical Bagherifard, S, Hickey, DJ, et al., Biomaterials, 2015, 185-197. Not peened Conventionally shot peened Severely shot peened The shot peening process mechanically modified the surface energy and roughness. These parameters directly influenced cell and bacteria interactions. The expression of vinculin focal adhesion contacts from osteoblasts was directly related to surface energy Bacterial colonization was inversely related to nanoscale surface roughness
  66. 66. CONFIDENTIAL 67 Titanium - Subtractive Images courtesy of T. J. Webster Rat amputee model1 μm1 μm Unmodified Ti Anodized Ti Rat walking on anodized Ti implant 3 days after surgery Unmodified Ti Lack of bone growth Anodized Ti Excellent bone growth 28 days post-implantation No infection
  67. 67. CONFIDENTIAL 68 Composites - Additive Walsh, WR, et al., The Spine Journal, 15:5, 2015, 1041-1049 Ti-Bond PEEK 4 weeks 12 weeks Bone contact = 64.5% Bone contact = 21.3% Bone contact = 70.0% Bone contact = 20.5%
  68. 68. CONFIDENTIAL 69 BioTy®- Controllable Antibacterial Efficacy 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Control 0.1%, 20V, 60s 0.5%, 20V, 30s 0.5%, 20V, 75s 0.5%, 20V, 120s 0.5%, 80V, 30s 0.5%, 80V, 120s 0.5%, 150V, 60s 0.5%, 150V, 90s 1.0%, 150V, 90s S.aureusColonization Colonization of Staphylococcus aureus after 4 hrs of culture on the indicated sample groups. Data represent the Avg ± StDev. Increasing coating thickness
  69. 69. CONFIDENTIAL 70 Key Takeaways • New Product Development Paradigm – Design (Form, Fit, Function); – Material Selection; – Surface Modification • Special focus should be given to the resulting nanostructure, as proteins operate at this scale and influence different cell attachment. • Different modification approaches exists depending on the substrate material.
  70. 70. 1
  71. 71. 2 | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu .
  72. 72. 3 2016: Evonik in figures | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu
  73. 73. 4 2016: Evonik in figures | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu
  74. 74. 5 Evonik Favors a Decentralized R&D Approach | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu
  75. 75. 6 Evonik Favors a Decentralized R&D Approach Evonik Venture Capital (€100 million over the medium term) | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu Expansion of Existing Businesses ~90% Establishment of new businesses, competence platforms ~10% Business Segments  Focus on existing markets & technologies  Strong customer orientation  Short-term & medium-term projects Strategic Innovation Unit - Creavis  Focus on new business options and new competence platforms  Medium-term & long-term projects Direct Investments  Nanocomp, Biosynthetic Technologies, Algal Scientific, Wiivv, JeNaCell algae-based omega-3 fatty acid product for use in animal feeds. FAVOR® superabsorbent polymer used in diapers Plexiglas - Poly(methyl methacrylate)
  76. 76. 7 Evonik Polymers Currently used in Medical Applications www.evonik.com/medical | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu VESTAKEEP® PEEK Applications: Spine, sports medicine, trauma, CMF, cardiovascular, drug ports, dental, medical textiles, ophthalmic, surgical instruments, housings.
  77. 77. 8 Medical Application primary support sites | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu
  78. 78. 9 Existing and New Material : Questions | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu                                       
  79. 79. 10 New Material Development: “Pull vs Push”              
  80. 80. 11 Design & Development: “New Materials Technology” | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu Design Control Guidance For Medical Device Manufacturers https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm070627.htm Medical Devices OEM Process
  81. 81. 12 Design & Development: “New Materials Technology” | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu Design Control Guidance For Medical Device Manufacturers https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm070627.htm
  82. 82. 13 Design & Development: “New Materials Technology” | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu Design Control Guidance For Medical Device Manufacturers https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm070627.htm
  83. 83. 14 FeedbackDeliveryFinalizationPlanning EvaluationSelection Some Best Practices for efficient OEM – Supplier synergy | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu • Material choice • Risks & controls • Market publicity • Showcase new materials • Supplier capabilities • Supplier competencies • OEM open-houses • Onsite visits • Recovery/Control Plans • Traceability • In-house Quality Team • Supplier Quality Plan • Internal & External Standards • Agreement • Supplier Quality Agreement • ISO 13485 conformity • Volume & Forecast • COPQ • Continuity Plans • Change Management • Periodic Audit • CAPA • Audit Support • Continuous improvement OEMSupplier Partnership & Collaboration Risk v. Reward Market Potential & Growth Adaptation Timeline / Cost Quality Conformance & Excellence Process Excellence Synergy
  84. 84. 15 Material Supplier to “Solution Provider” | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu
  85. 85. 16 Material Supplier to “Solution Provider” | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu
  86. 86. 17 | Public | June 14, 2017 | OMTEC Presentation | Balaji Prabhu
  87. 87. CONFIDENTIAL 71

×