Quantitative analysis of in vivo tissue responses to titanium‐oxide‐ and hydroxyapatite‐coated titanium alloy

Abstract

We have previously studied a large number of histological specimens of biomaterials and found that regions with and without an intervening fibrous membrane coexisted in many specimens. Therefore, it appears necessary to perform an evaluation of the entire specimen when histologically assessing the affinity of bone for a biomaterial. Accordingly, we performed a quantitative histological evaluation of hydroxyapatite (HAP)- and titanium-oxide(TiO2)-coated Ti-6A1-4V and uncoated Ti-6A1-4V (control) by determining the affinity index. This was defined as the length of bone directly opposed to the implant/the total length of the bone-implant interface X 100%. The test materials were inserted into the distal epiphyseal region of the femurs of adult dogs, and follow-up quantitative histological comparisons were performed from 4 weeks to 96 weeks. The HAP-coated implants had the highest affinity index 4 weeks after insertion, and this superiority was maintained up to 96 weeks. There was a significant difference in affinity index between HAP-coated implants and control implants (P less than 0.001), while TiO2-coated implants showed no significant difference in comparison to the control.

Bond strength, compositional, and structural properties of hydroxyapatite coating on Ti, ZrO2‐coated Ti, and TPS‐coated Ti substrate

“…Triplicate samples (⌽25 × 5 mm 3 ) were evaluated with steel testing studs (⌽25 × 35 mm 3 ). E-7 epoxy gel (Shanghai Chemical Institute, China) was the adhesive agent.…”

A histomorphometric study on osteoconduction and osseointegration of titanium alloy with and without plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating using back-scattered electron images

“…Some studies With regard to plasma-sprayed HAcoated titanium implants have demonstrated that the HA coating (HAC) can promote the formation of normal bone at its surface [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Therefore, it is generally described as osteoconductive.…”

“…Therefore, it is generally described as osteoconductive. Furthermore, at the optical microscopic (OM) I- [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and the scanning electron microscopic (SEM) [15,16] level, the evidence of osseointegration [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]18], a direct bone-to-HAC contact, has been reported. However, at the SEM level, there are no quantitative studies on osteoconduction and osseointegration of HA-coated implant reported.…”

A comparison of bone remodelling around hydroxyapatite-coated, porous-coated and grit-blasted hip replacements retrieved at post-mortem

“…4 Although there is concern that HA resorbs with time and that the release of HA debris may have adverse effects, 5 the clinical results reported so far for HA-coated components suggest that at present this is not a significant problem. Several reports of the outcome after the insertion of porous-coated uncemented implants have shown good results.…”