Image-Based Evaluation of Implant Tissue Interface Integrity in Polymer Orthopaedic Devices

Year : 2026 | Volume : 14 | Special Issue 03 | Page : 170 179
By

Sheeba Santhosh,

S.A. Yuvaraj,

Chengamma Chitteti,

NMG Kumar,

M. Ram Prasad Reddy,

  1. Associate Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Panimalar Engineering College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu,
  2. Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering, GRT Institute of Engineering and Technology, Tiruttani, Tamil Nadu, India
  3. Professor, Department of Data Science, School of Engineering, Mohan Babu University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India
  4. Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sri M. Visvesvaraya Institute of Technology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
  5. Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Aditya College of Engineering, Madanapalle, Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract

Polymer orthopedic implants offer radiolucency and mechanical compatibility with bone, but long-term success depends on maintaining a stable implant–tissue interface. Routine imaging is widely available for follow-up, yet interface integrity is commonly judged qualitatively, limiting early detection of fixation compromise and reducing comparability across devices and time points. This work presents an image-based methodology to quantify interface integrity by extracting interpretable interface descriptors from a standardized interface belt around the implant boundary. The approach combines boundary-geometry roughness metrics with texture-transition analysis based on local entropy and complementary texture statistics to generate an adhesion integrity score and longitudinal change indicators. Example results demonstrate stable indicator trajectories in a stable-fixation cohort and progressive degradation patterns in a compromised cohort, with strong cross-sectional separability at 12 months using both roughness and entropy-transition features. End-to-end performance indicates that accurate boundary localization supports robust feature computation and enables practical throughput for follow-up imaging analysis. The proposed framework provides a reproducible, non-invasive pathway for monitoring interface condition and supporting integrity assessment of polymer orthopedic devices using imaging-derived indicators.

Keywords: Polymer orthopedic implants; Implant–tissue interface; Texture analysis; Local entropy; Adhesion integrity scoring.

[This article belongs to Special Issue under section in Journal of Polymer & Composites (jopc)]

How to cite this article: Sheeba Santhosh, S.A. Yuvaraj, Chengamma Chitteti, NMG Kumar, M. Ram Prasad Reddy. Image-Based Evaluation of Implant Tissue Interface Integrity in Polymer Orthopaedic Devices. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(03):170-179.
How to cite this URL: Sheeba Santhosh, S.A. Yuvaraj, Chengamma Chitteti, NMG Kumar, M. Ram Prasad Reddy. Image-Based Evaluation of Implant Tissue Interface Integrity in Polymer Orthopaedic Devices. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(03):170-179. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jopc/article=2026/view=243063

References

  1. S. A. Al Maruf, J. Ren, K. Cheng, H. Xin, W. Lewin, E. Pickering, H. V. Kruse, D. Leinkram, K. Parthasarathi, I. Wise, B. Filippi, S. Beirne, C. Froggatt, J. Wykes, D. Howes, N. Suchowerska, M. A. Woodruff, J. M. Crook, D. R. McKenzie, and J. R. Clark, “Evaluation of osseointegration of plasma treated polyaryletherketone maxillofacial implants,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, art. no. 1895, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-80335-z.
  2. Ogawa, R. Shibata, K. Komatsu, T. Matsuura, D. Chao, W. Park, and M. Hirota, “Bridging the missing middle in osseointegration: meso-scale topography between macro design and microroughness,” International Journal of Implant Dentistry, vol. 11, art. no. 68, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40729-025-00656-0.
  3. Cvrček, J. Krčil, J. Musílková, V. Musílková, L. Bačáková, V. Nehasil, F. Denk, and Z. Čejka, “Nanostructured TiNb coating improves the bioactivity of 3D printed PEEK,” Materials & Design, vol. 224, art. no. 111312, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111312.
  4. Zieliński, P. Habib, H. A. Alghamdi, and A. S. Siraj, “Analysis of Micro-CT Techniques for Bone-Implant Interface and Osseointegration Assessment: A Comparative Study of Different Scanning and Reconstruction Protocols,” Materials, vol. 17, no. 8, art. no. 1737, 2024, doi: 10.3390/ma17081737.
  5. Consolini, E. Koretsky, K. M. Koch, H. G. Potter, and M. F. Koff, “Radiograph-Based Radiomics Successfully Classify MRI-Based Identification of Femoral Loosening in Patients With Total Hip Arthroplasty—A Preliminary Study,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 44, no. 1, p. e70120, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1002/jor.70120.
  6. Mills, G. A. de Jong, S. N. van Laarhoven, T. J. J. Maal, and P. J. C. Heesterbeek, “Deep learning applied to standard radiographs improves detection of implant loosening in total knee arthroplasty: A proof-of-concept study,” Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics, vol. 13, no. 1, p. e70611, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1002/jeo2.70611.
  7. ] N. Schumacher, F. Geiger, S. Spors, R. Bader, C. Haubelt, and D. Kluess, “Detection of Total Hip Replacement Loosening Based on Structure-Borne Sound: Influence of the Position of the Sensor on the Hip Stem,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 14, art. no. 4594, 2024, doi: 10.3390/s24144594.
  8. Masciulli, R. Antico, A. Ascari, M. Carra, G. Civardi, and L. Bigliardi, “Hip prosthesis failure prediction through radiological deep learning using longitudinal data,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 196, art. no. 105802, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.105802.
  9. S. Kim, R. K. Cho, S. C. Yang, J. H. Hur, and Y. In, “Machine Learning for Detecting Total Knee Arthroplasty Implant Loosening on Plain Radiographs,” Bioengineering, vol. 10, no. 6, art. no. 632, 2023, doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10060632.
  10. Stuani, G. Mazzoli, F. Pavia, R. Bianchini, P. D’Incalci, and A. Cristofolini, “A Review of Artificial Intelligence Model for Aseptic Loosening in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty,” Bioengineering, vol. 13, no. 1, art. no. 122, 2026, doi: 10.3390/bioengineering13010122.
  11. Mohandass G, Krishnan GH, Sridhathan C, et al. Lung cancer classification using optimized attention-based CNN with DenseNet-201 transfer learning on CT. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2024;95:106351. doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2024.106351.
  12. Krishnan GH, Umashankar G, Abraham S. Cerebrovascular disorder diagnosis using MR angiography. Biomed Res (India). 2016;27(3):773-775.
  13. Mohandass G, Natarajan RA, Krishnan GH. Comparative analysis of optical coherence tomography retinal images using multidimensional and cluster methods. Biomed Res (India). 2015;26(2):273-285.
  14. Sabarivani A, Krishnan GH. Home health assistive system for critical care patients. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2015;6(2):629-633.
  15. Santhosh S, Juliet AV, Krishnan GH. Predictive analysis of identification and disease condition monitoring using bioimpedance data. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. 2021;12(2):2955-2963. doi:10.1007/s12652-020-01988-3.
  16. Geetha, A. K. Singh, R. Asokamani, and A. K. Gogia, “Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants – A review,” Prog. Mater. Sci., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 397–425, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.004.
  17. Zhang, Y. Zhao, X. Liao, H. Wu, Y. Wang, and J. Liu, “Radiomics analysis of periprosthetic bone for prediction of early aseptic loosening after total hip arthroplasty,” Eur. Radiol., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 4092–4103, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-09344-2.
  18. Gao, L. Yang, Z. Luo, and B. Li, “Spatial pattern of bone–implant interface degradation and its biomechanical consequences: A combined experimental and finite element study,” J. Biomech., vol. 161, art. no. 111862, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2023.111862.
Special Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 14
Special Issue 03
Received 28/02/2026
Accepted 07/04/2026
Published 06/05/2026
Publication Time 67 Days

Login

My IP

PlumX Metrics