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

147Citations
Citations of this article
71Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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). (C) 2000 John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Svehla, M., Morberg, P., Zicat, B., Bruce, W., Sonnabend, D., & Walsh, W. R. (2000). Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of titanium implant integration: Comparison of five surface structures. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 51(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(200007)51:1<15::AID-JBM3>3.0.CO;2-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free