Mechanical and histomorphometric evaluations of titanium implants with different surface treatments inserted in sheep cortical bone
Mechanical and histomorphometric evaluations of titanium implants with different surface treatments inserted in sheep cortical bone
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0142-9612(02)00548-3
复制
发表时间：
2003-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
14
通讯作者：
Giardino, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Giavaresi, G;Fini, M;Giardino, R
改善种植体-骨界面仍然是一个悬而未决的问题，在过去的十年中，对化学修饰种植体表面用于无骨水泥固定的兴趣稳步增长。在不同时间对植入羊股皮质骨的植入物进行力学和组织形态学研究，比较不同表面处理下钛螺钉（3.5 x 7mm长圆分隔）的体内骨整合情况。植入8周后，阳极氧化和水热处理种植体（ANODIC）的推出力明显高于机械加工种植体（MACH） （36%, p < 0.0005），而酸蚀种植体（HF）的推出力比其他表面处理降低39%。植入12周后，HF种植体的推出力值仍显著低于MACH种植体（-19%,p < 0.01）和羟基磷灰石真空等离子喷涂种植体（HAVPS, -25%, p < 0.0005），其中HAVPS种植体的推出力最高（p < 0.001）。植入8周和12周后，HF种植体的AI显著低于MACH、HAWS和ANODIC种植体（p < 0.05），降幅接近-25%。总之，结果似乎证实了ANODIC和HAWS植入体在行为方面没有特定的差异。此外，尽管MACH种植体显示出一些表面污染物，但与ANODIC和HAWS种植体一样，它们在机械和组织形态学上都能在12周内确保良好的骨整合。然而，需要进一步的研究来调查种植体周围的骨硬度和矿化。(C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.版权所有。
Improvement of the implant-bone interface is still an open problem and the interest in chemical modification of implant surfaces for cementless fixation has grown steadily over the past decade. Mechanical and histomorphometric investigations were performed at different times on implants inserted into sheep femoral cortical bone to compare the in vivo osseointegration of titanium screws (circle divide 3.5 x 7 mm length) with different surface treatments. After 8 weeks of implantation, the push-out force of anodized and hydrothermally treated implants (ANODIC) was significantly higher than that of machined implants (MACH) (36%, p < 0.0005), whereas a decrease of 39% was observed for acid-etched implants (HF) when compared to other surface treatments. After 12 weeks of implantation, the push-out force values of HF implants were still significantly lower than those observed for MACH (-19%, p < 0.01) and hydroxyapatite vacuum plasma-sprayed implants (HAVPS, -25%, p < 0.0005), and the highest push-out force was found in HAVPS (p < 0.001) implants. After 8 and 12 weeks of implantation, the AI of HF implants was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (similar to -25%) than that of MACH, HAWS and ANODIC implants. In conclusion, results appear to confirm that there are no specific differences between ANODIC and HAWS implants in terms of behavior. Moreover, although MACH implants show some surface contaminating agents, they appear to ensure good osseointegration within 12 weeks both mechanically and histomorphometrically, as do ANODIC and HAWS implants. However, further studies are required to investigate bone hardness and mineralization around implants. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.