Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of titanium implant integration: comparison of five surface structures.
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).
Svehla
M
M
Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, Room 2-41, Level 2, South Wing, Edmund Blacket Building, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, University of New South Wales, 2031, Sydney, Australia.
Morberg
P
P
Zicat
B
B
Bruce
W
W
Sonnabend
D
D
Walsh
W R
WR
D000497:Alloys; D000818:Animals; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D017886:Durapatite; D020007:Implants, Experimental; D008297:Male; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D016062:Porosity; D012756:Sheep; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors; D014025:Titanium
D000497:Alloys; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; C031462:titanium alloy (TiAl6V4); D017886:Durapatite; D014025:Titanium