In Vitro and in Vivo Assessment of Bone-Implant Interface: A Comparative Study

Abstract

The present in vitro and in vivo comparison of three bioactive (HA, AP40, RKKP) and three bioinert (Ti6-Al4-V, Al2O3, ZrO2) materials was undertaken to identify which of them provide(s) the most suitable coating for prostheses implanted in patients with altered metabolic status. The experimental design included in vitro tests with human osteoblasts and morphological observations by scanning electron microscopy. For the in vivo evaluation, the materials were implanted in the femoral condyle of ovariectomised and intact female rats, and two months after surgery an X-ray microanalytical study was performed. The in vitro study showed good biocompatibility with all materials. Microanalysis evidenced a similar behaviour with all materials except the two biological glasses. The differences in Ca and P content observed between intact and ovariectomised rats can be explained by the intrinsic capability of biological glasses to undergo surface modifications in the presence of alterations of the bone metabolism. Thus, their use seems to be indicated in recipients with osteoporotic pathologies.

Study of the osteoconductive capacity of hydroxyapatite implanted into the femur of ovariectomized rats

“…The histological findings presented a poor interaction between the inserted material and bone tissue, and a low amount of newly formed bone, and were attributed to the osteoporosis-like conditions as a result of gonadal deficiency induced by ovariectomization procedure (Li et al, 2004;Lugero et al, 2000;Pan et al, 2000;Wang et al, 2005). Similar findings have also been reported by De Benedittis et al (1999), Fini et al (1997), Hayashi et al (1994);Jung et al (2001), who, however, used hydroxyapatite as implant material. Statistical analysis did not revealed statistical difference between the BOHR and NO, but these two groups were different in relation to the BOWHR group.…”

“…The authors noted poor interaction between the material implanted and bone tissue, as well as a low amount of newly formed bone, and attributed the findings to the osteoporosis-like conditions as a result of gonadal deficiency induced by ovariectomy (Hayashi et al, 1994;Lugero et al, 2000). Similar results have been reported by De Benedittis et al, (1999);Fini et al, (1997); Hayashi et al, (1994);Jung et al, (2001);and Pan et al, (2000), who used hydroxyapatite as implant material. Cunha et al, (2008) confirmed the effects of estrogen deficiency on the delay of bone regeneration in defects created experimentally in the femur of ovariectomized rats and filled with collagen membranes.…”