Research ArticleArticles

Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 1: An In Vitro Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS Porous Surfaces

Regina F. MacBarb, Derek P. Lindsey, Chelsea S. Bahney, Shane A. Woods, Mark L. Wolfe and Scott A. Yerby
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2017, 11 (3) 15; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/4015

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Fig. 1
    Fig. 1

    Gross images of titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated and additive manufactured (AM) discs (top). Cross-section images taken from stereological analysis (bottom).

  • Fig. 2
    Fig. 2

    Representative scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of unseeded titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated and additive manufactured (AM) discs (top left), discs after three weeks of culture with hFOB cells (bottom left), and of human cancellous bone allograft to show target surface topography (top right). Representative SEM images of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (HA) coating on an AM disc (bottom right).

  • Fig. 3
    Fig. 3

    Two-way ANOVA analysis of additive manufactured (AM) compared to titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated discs, with and without nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (HA) coating for initial cell attachment (a) and cell proliferation (b). When warranted, a Tukey’s post hoc test was used. Analysis was conducted within each time point for each metric. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, n = 5 per group, mean ± SD.

  • Fig. 4
    Fig. 4

    Two-way ANOVA analysis of additive manufactured (AM) compared to titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated discs, with and without nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (HA) coating for alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity (a) and calcium production (b). When warranted, a Tukey’s post hoc test was used. Analysis was conducted within each time point for each metric. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, n = 5 per group, mean ± SD.

Tables

  • Table 1

    Surface characterization of titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated and additive manufactured (AM) discs.

    TPSAM
    Mean Porosity (%), mean ± SD58.8 ± 6.260.0 ±3.7
    Mean Pore Size (μm), mean ± SD141.7290.6
    Tissue Interface Height (μm)7431051
    Estimated Average Available Surface Area (mm2)649.391153.67
    *Estimated Surface Contact Angle θ (°), mean ± SD105.2 ± 12.470.1 ± 9.9

    • ↵* Note: Surface contact angle could not be measured on HA-coated discs due to their near perfect surface wettability.

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 1: An In Vitro Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS Porous Surfaces
Regina F. MacBarb, Derek P. Lindsey, Chelsea S. Bahney, Shane A. Woods, Mark L. Wolfe, Scott A. Yerby
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2017, 11 (3) 15; DOI: 10.14444/4015
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords