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

✍ Scribed by Svehla, M. ;Morberg, P. ;Zicat, B. ;Bruce, W. ;Sonnabend, D. ;Walsh, W. R.

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2000
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 595 KB
• Volume: 51
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0021-9304
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(200007)51:1<15::aid-jbm3>3.0.co;2-9

✦ Synopsis

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 m thick) coating (GBHA), Porocoat (PC), Porocoat 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).