Nickel Titanium Implant
Nickel Titanium Implant - Related Videos
07:28
Imaging Cell Viability on Non-transparent Scaffolds — Using the Example of a Novel Knitted Titanium Implant
0 Views •
Cited by 6 •
2016
Here we present a fluorophore based imaging technique to detect cell viability on a non-transparent titanium scaffold as well as to detect glimpses of the scaffold impurities. This protocol troubleshoots the drawback of imaging cell-cell or cell-metal interactions on non-transparent scaffolds.
09:35
Applying Dynamic Strain on Thin Oxide Films Immobilized on a Pseudoelastic Nickel-Titanium Alloy
0 Views •
2020
Dynamic, tensile strain is applied on TiO2 thin films to study the effects of strain on electrocatalysis, specifically proton reduction and water oxidation. TiO2 films are prepared by thermal treatment of the pseudo-elastic NiTi alloy (Nitinol).
08:40
Gyroid Nickel Nanostructures from Diblock Copolymer Supramolecules
0 Views •
Cited by 3 •
2014
This article describes the preparation of well-ordered nickel nanofoams via electroless metal deposition onto nanoporous templates obtained from self-assembled diblock copolymer based supramolecules.
06:48
Rapid Formation and Testing of Self-expanding NiTi Frames with a Small Form Factor Suitable for Minimally Invasive Implants
0 Views •
Cited by 1 •
2025
This work illustrates a low-cost fabrication technique for shape-setting nitinol wires/frames with a small form factor using sacrificial fixtures. The technique is demonstrated for the fabrication of self-expanding frames designed for minimally invasive implants with complex shapes.
07:05
In Vitro Evaluation of The Effects Of Er,Cr:YSGG and Diode Lasers Used on Titanium Cylinder
0 Views •
2025
In this study, Er,Cr:YSGG and diode lasers applied separately to the flat surface of a total of 96 specially designed titanium cylinders. A thermocouple placed on the other surface and the temperature was measured. Surface roughness analyzed by profilometer, SEM and AFM.
FAQs
The reversible martensite-to-austenite transformation allows the device to respond to changes in body temperature and mechanical load while retaining its intended supporting behavior. This phase change is central to shape memory and superelasticity, so researchers consider it when assessing whether an implant can maintain mechanical function in physiological conditions.
The surface oxide layer helps limit corrosion and the release of nickel from the alloy. That matters in immunology and infection studies because nickel release is one of the implant-related variables examined alongside tissue compatibility, inflammatory responses, and metal hypersensitivity. Surface condition therefore connects material stability with biological assessment.
Limiting nickel release addresses corrosion-related material exposure, whereas tissue compatibility concerns how surrounding tissue responds to device presence. The overview identifies both as evaluation targets, along with inflammatory responses and metal hypersensitivity. Keeping these endpoints separate helps researchers identify whether a concern arises from surface chemistry, immune response, or broader tissue interaction.
An evaluation can examine tissue compatibility, inflammatory responses, metal hypersensitivity, bacterial adhesion, and biofilm formation. These endpoints cover both host-side and microbe-side interactions: how tissues and immune processes respond to the device, and whether bacteria can attach and develop a biofilm. Together, they support a broader safety assessment than mechanical performance alone.
Bacterial attachment and subsequent biofilm formation are central infection-related concerns because they describe how microorganisms interact with the implant surface. Studying these outcomes helps determine susceptibility to implant-associated infection and can reveal whether a surface treatment or design change improves microbial resistance. This complements, rather than replaces, evaluation of host inflammatory responses.
Results from compatibility, inflammation, hypersensitivity, adhesion, and biofilm assessments can guide safer implant design. They may support modifying the surface oxide layer or applying improved surface treatments, while preserving the alloy’s mechanical support and adaptive behavior. The broader goal is to reduce adverse host responses and implant-associated infection risk through material and surface decisions.