Effect of Ca/P coating resorption and surgical fit on the bone/implant interface

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The effect of coating resorption on bone apposition and attachment strength to resorbable hydroxyapatite (HA), nonresorbable HA-coated, and uncoated rough titanium implants was evaluated in interference- and noninterferencefit (gap of 2–3 mm) surgical models 2, 4, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Interference and noninterference fits showed differences in bone bridging. Bone apposition was circumferential around the implants in noninterference fit. Significantly greater bone apposition was seen to nonresorbable HA-coated implants than uncoated and resorbable HA-coated implants at 4 and 12 weeks. Only resorbable HA coatings showed significantly lower bone apposition for noninterference versus interference fit and from 4–12 weeks. At 2 weeks, strengths of bone attachment to resorbable HA-coated implants were greater than the other implants, and decreased to lower values (not significant) than the nonresorbable HA-coated implants at 4 and 12 weeks. Differences in push-out shear strengths between interference- and noninterference-fit surgical models were significant for uncoated implants at 4 weeks, but not for HA-coated implants at any time period. Significant differences were seen between the three implant types only for the noninterference-fit model, where the HA-coated implants showed greater strengths than the uncoated implants (significant at 2 and 4 weeks). This study showed that presence of resorbable or nonresorbable HA coatings is beneficial when a gap of 2–3 mm is present between the implant and the bone. The resorbable HA-coated implants showed greatest strengths at the early time period. At later time periods, resorbable HA-coated implants showed lower bone apposition and attachment strengths than nonresorbable HA coatings. However, resorbable HA-coated implants showed equivalent bone apposition and attachment to uncoated implants, suggesting that HA coating resorption and remodeling at the bone/implant interface can provide good osteoconduction and fixation. © 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.