Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of titanium implant integration: comparison of five surface structures

J Biomed Mater Res. 2000 Jul;51(1):15-22. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(200007)51:1<15::aid-jbm3>3.0.co;2-9.

Abstract

Achieving a stable bone-implant interface is an important factor in the long-term outcome of joint arthroplasty. In this study, we employed an ovine bicortical model to compare the bone-healing response to five different surfaces on titanium alloy implants: grit blasted (GB), grit blasted plus hydroxyapatite (50 microm thick) coating (GBHA), Porocoat(R) (PC), Porocoat(R) with HA (PCHA) and smooth (S). Push-out testing, histology, and backscatter scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging were employed to assess the healing response at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Push-out testing revealed PC and PCHA surfaces resulted in significantly greater mechanical fixation over all other implant types at all time points (p <.05). HA coating on the grit-blasted surface significantly improved fixation at 8 and 12 weeks (p <.05). The addition of HA onto the porous coating did not significantly improve fixation in this model. Quantification of ingrowth/ongrowth from SEM images revealed that HA coating of the grit-blasted surfaces resulted in significantly more ongrowth at 4 weeks (p <.05).

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Alloys
  • Animals
  • Biocompatible Materials*
  • Durapatite*
  • Implants, Experimental*
  • Male
  • Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
  • Porosity
  • Sheep
  • Stress, Mechanical
  • Surface Properties
  • Time Factors
  • Titanium*

Substances

  • Alloys
  • Biocompatible Materials
  • titanium alloy (TiAl6V4)
  • Durapatite
  • Titanium