Cargando…
An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model
Our study was designed to evaluate osseointegration among implants with three surface treatments: plasma-sprayed titanium (P), plasma-sprayed titanium with hydroxyapatite (PHA), and chemical-textured titanium with hydroxyapatite (CHA). Average surface roughness (Ra) was 27 microns for the P group, 1...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20712889 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-57 |
_version_ | 1782186177093173248 |
---|---|
author | Hermida, Juan C Bergula, Arnie Dimaano, Fred Hawkins, Monica Colwell, Clifford W D'Lima, Darryl D |
author_facet | Hermida, Juan C Bergula, Arnie Dimaano, Fred Hawkins, Monica Colwell, Clifford W D'Lima, Darryl D |
author_sort | Hermida, Juan C |
collection | PubMed |
description | Our study was designed to evaluate osseointegration among implants with three surface treatments: plasma-sprayed titanium (P), plasma-sprayed titanium with hydroxyapatite (PHA), and chemical-textured titanium with hydroxyapatite (CHA). Average surface roughness (Ra) was 27 microns for the P group, 17 microns for the PHA group, and 26 microns for the CHA group. Bilateral distal intramedullary implants were placed in the femora of thirty rabbits. Histomorphometry of scanning electron microscopy images was used to analyze the amount of bone around the implants at 6 and 12 weeks after implantation. Greater amounts of osseointegration were observed in the hydroxyapatite-coated groups than in the noncoated group. For all implant surfaces, osseointegration was greater at the diaphyseal level compared to the metaphyseal level. No significant differences were seen in osseointegration between the 6 and 12 week time points. Although the average surface roughness of the P and the CHA groups was similar, osseointegration of the CHA implants was significantly greater. The results of this in vivo lapine study suggest that the presence of an hydroxyapatite coating enhances osseointegration despite similarities in average surface roughness. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2933710 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-29337102010-09-07 An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model Hermida, Juan C Bergula, Arnie Dimaano, Fred Hawkins, Monica Colwell, Clifford W D'Lima, Darryl D J Orthop Surg Res Research Article Our study was designed to evaluate osseointegration among implants with three surface treatments: plasma-sprayed titanium (P), plasma-sprayed titanium with hydroxyapatite (PHA), and chemical-textured titanium with hydroxyapatite (CHA). Average surface roughness (Ra) was 27 microns for the P group, 17 microns for the PHA group, and 26 microns for the CHA group. Bilateral distal intramedullary implants were placed in the femora of thirty rabbits. Histomorphometry of scanning electron microscopy images was used to analyze the amount of bone around the implants at 6 and 12 weeks after implantation. Greater amounts of osseointegration were observed in the hydroxyapatite-coated groups than in the noncoated group. For all implant surfaces, osseointegration was greater at the diaphyseal level compared to the metaphyseal level. No significant differences were seen in osseointegration between the 6 and 12 week time points. Although the average surface roughness of the P and the CHA groups was similar, osseointegration of the CHA implants was significantly greater. The results of this in vivo lapine study suggest that the presence of an hydroxyapatite coating enhances osseointegration despite similarities in average surface roughness. BioMed Central 2010-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC2933710/ /pubmed/20712889 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-57 Text en Copyright ©2010 Hermida et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Hermida, Juan C Bergula, Arnie Dimaano, Fred Hawkins, Monica Colwell, Clifford W D'Lima, Darryl D An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model |
title | An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model |
title_full | An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model |
title_fullStr | An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model |
title_full_unstemmed | An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model |
title_short | An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model |
title_sort | in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20712889 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-57 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hermidajuanc aninvivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT bergulaarnie aninvivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT dimaanofred aninvivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT hawkinsmonica aninvivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT colwellcliffordw aninvivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT dlimadarryld aninvivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT hermidajuanc invivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT bergulaarnie invivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT dimaanofred invivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT hawkinsmonica invivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT colwellcliffordw invivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel AT dlimadarryld invivoevaluationofboneresponsetothreeimplantsurfacesusingarabbitintramedullaryrodmodel |