Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs

TLDR

The study aimed to assess how different titanium implant surface treatments affect bone integration. Six hollow‑cylinder implants with six distinct surface finishes were inserted into the tibial and femoral metaphyses of six miniature pigs, and after 3 and 6 weeks the implants and surrounding bone were harvested and examined in undecalcified transverse sections. All implants showed direct bone contact, but bone‑implant contact percentages varied with surface roughness—electropolished and medium‑grit sandblasted/acid‑pickled surfaces yielded 20–25 %, large‑grit sandblasted and plasma‑sprayed surfaces 30–40 %, large‑grit sandblasted/acid‑attacked surfaces 50–60 %, and HA‑coated surfaces 60–70 %—with HA coating also exhibiting resorption, indicating a positive correlation between surface roughness and bone integration.

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the influence of different surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. Hollow‐cylinder implants with six different surfaces were placed in the metaphyses of the tibia and femur in six miniature pigs. After 3 and 6 weeks, the implants with surrounding bone were removed and analyzed in undecalcified transverse sections. The histologic examination revealed direct bone‐implant contact for all implants. However, the morphometric analyses demonstrated significant differences in the percentage of bone‐implant contact, when measured in cancellous bone. Electropolished as well as the sandblasted and acid pickled (medium grit; HF/HNO 3 ) implant surfaces had the lowest percentage of bone contact with mean values ranging between 20 and 25%. Sandblasted implants with a large grit and titanium plasmasprayed implants demonstrated 30–40% mean bone contact. The highest extent of bone‐implant interface was observed in sandblasted and acid attacked surfaces (large grit; HCl/H 2 SO 4 ) with mean values of 50–60%, and hydroxylapatite (HA)‐coated implants with 60–70%. However, the HA coating consistently revealed signs of resorption. It can be concluded that the extent of bone‐implant interface is positively correlated with an increasing roughness of the implant surface.