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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hermida, Juan C, Bergula, Arnie, Dimaano, Fred, Hawkins, Monica, Colwell, Clifford W, D'Lima, Darryl D
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