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

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
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 μm 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). © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 51, 15–22, 2000.