Effect of Ti6Al4V Alloy Surface and Porosity on Bone Osseointegration: In Vivo Pilot Study in Rabbits
Authors:
- Amparo VanaclochaAmparo Vanaclocha
- Vicente VanaclochaVicente Vanaclocha
- Carlos M. AtienzaCarlos M. Atienza
- Pablo Jordá-GómezPablo Jordá-Gómez
- Víctor Primo-CapellaVíctor Primo-Capella
- Jose R. BlascoJose R. Blasco
- Luis PortolésLuis Portolés
- Nieves Saiz-SapenaNieves Saiz-Sapena
- Leyre VanaclochaLeyre Vanaclocha
Open Access
Abstract
Unmodified Ti6Al4V can osseointegrate, but sometimes this capacity needs to be improved. This study aimed to see how much porosity improves osseointegration in a Ti6Al4V implant. Three types of Ti6Al4V cylindrical-shaped implants (13.00 mm length × 5.00 mm diameter) were evaluated: solid sandblasted acid-etched, sintered, and porous 3D-printed (681.00 µm average pore size). Fifteen 20-week-old nullipara female parasite-free New Zealand California white rabbits were used, employing the femoral condyle defect model and undertaking µ-CT analysis and pull-out testing eight weeks later. On µ-CT densitometric analysis, the solid sandblasted rod showed the highest new bone growth around the implant. Bone growth was higher inside the implants for the porous 3D-printed (54.00 ± 5.00 mm3) than for the sintered (1.00 ± 0.05 mm3) and zero for the sandblasted implants. In the pull-out test, there were no statistically significant differences in the ANOVA analysis between the sintered (900.00 N ± 310.00 N) and porous 3D-printed (700.00 N ± 220.00 N) implants. Such differences did exist between the sandblasted material (220.00 N ± 50.00 N) and the two other materials (sintered p 0.002, porous p 0.034). The porous 3D-printed and sintered implant pull-out strength were significantly better than that of the solid rod sandblasted implant. Still, there were no statistically significant differences between the first two.Keywords
Funding Information
- MEDIFUTUR
This publication has 129 references indexed in Scilit:
- Rethinking Biomedical Titanium Alloy Design: A Review of Challenges from Biological and Manufacturing PerspectivesAdvanced Healthcare Materials, 2024
- Stress shielding at the bone‐implant interface: Influence of surface roughness and of the bone‐implant contact ratioJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 2020
- Tantalum-incorporated hydroxyapatite coating on titanium implants: its mechanical and in vitro osteogenic propertiesJournal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, 2019
- Improvement of bone‐tendon fixation by porous titanium interference screw: A rabbit animal modelJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 2018
- Bone ingrowth potential of electron beam and selective laser melting produced trabecular-like implant surfaces with and without a biomimetic coatingJournal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, 2012
- Frictional and bone ingrowth properties of engineered surface topographies produced by electron beam technologyArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2010
- Electron beam‐melted, free‐form‐fabricated titanium alloy implants: Material surface characterization and early bone response in rabbitsJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials, 2008
- Fabrication of porous titanium scaffold materials by a fugitive filler methodJournal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, 2008
- Osteointegration of biomimetic apatite coating applied onto dense and porous metal implants in femurs of goatsJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials, 2003
- Hisotological and radiographic determination of the age of physeal closure of the distal femur, proximal tibia, and proximal fibula of the New Zealand white rabbitJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 1994