Pablo Jordá-Gómez

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.

Primary dental implant stability is critical to enable osseointegration. We assessed the primary stability of our newly designed dental implant. We used the calf rib bone animal model. Our implant has an outside tapered screw with two inside barrettes that deploy with a second screw situated at the implant’s crown. We used ten calf ribs with III/IV bone density and inserted ten implants per rib. We deployed the barrettes in the calf rib’s transversal direction to support against the nearby cortical bone. We measured the primary implant’s stability with resonance frequency analysis and collected the Implant Stability Quota (ISQ) in the transverse and longitudinal calf rib planes before (PRE) and after (POS) deploying the barrette. The mean ISQ was PRE 84.00 ± 3.56 and POS 84.73 ± 4.53 (p = 0.84) in the longitudinal plane and PRE 81.80 ± 2.74 and POS 83.53 ± 4.53 (0.27) in the transverse plane. The barrettes’ insertion increases our dental implant primary stability by 11% in the transverse plane and 2% in the longitudinal plane. Our dental implant ISQ values are in the higher range than those reported in the literature and reflect high primary stability after insertion. The barrette deployment improves the dental implant’s primary stability, particularly in the direction in which it deploys (transverse plane).

Background context. Dental implants are designed to replace a missing tooth. Implant stability is vital to achieving osseointegration and successful implantation. Although there are many implants available on the market, there is room for improvement. Purpose. We describe a new dental implant with improved primary stability features. Study design. Lab bench test studies. Methods. We evaluated the new implant using static and flexion–compression fatigue tests with compression loads, 35 Ncm tightening torque, displacement control, 0.01 mm/s actuator movement speed, and 9–10 Hz load application frequency, obtaining a cyclic load diagram. We applied variable cyclic loadings of predetermined amplitude and recorded the number of cycles until failure. The test ended with implant failure (breakage or permanent deformation) or reaching five million cycles for each load. Results. Mean stiffness was 1151.13 ± 133.62 SD N/mm, mean elastic limit force 463.94 ± 75.03 SD N, and displacement 0.52 ± 0.04 SD mm, at failure force 663.21 ± 54.23 SD N and displacement 1.56 ± 0.18 SD mm, fatigue load limit 132.6 ± 10.4 N, and maximum bending moment 729.3 ± 69.43 mm/N. Conclusions. The implant fatigue limit is satisfactory for incisor and canine teeth and between the values for premolars and molars for healthy patients. The system exceeds five million cycles when subjected to a 132.60 N load, ensuring long-lasting life against loads below the fatigue limit.

Study Design. We selected the materials and implant design and performed Finite Element Analysis (FEA) studies. Background. Nucleus disc replacements, implanted since 1960, have undergone continuous evolution in materials and designs, but subsidence, extrusion, and in vivo degradation limit widespread use. Aim. The aim of this study is to create a new nucleus disc replacement that avoids the abovementioned drawbacks. Material and Methods. We created eighteen designs with varied materials and analyzed them with FEA in compression and shear tests in a lumbar spine model programmed in Ansys Parametric Design Language. Results. Bionate 80A had the closest mechanical characteristics to the intact disc nucleus. Monobloc designs bore physiological stresses correctly but suffered significant deformations with permanent damage during surgical insertion through the annulus opening. In addition, sandwich designs were too rigid and had an unreliable curing process. Therefore, we chose an oval doughnut-like 5mm wall monobloc Bionate 80A nucleus replacement. It minimized implant stress in loading, distributed loads uniformly, and tolerated lateral compression during implantation. Conclusions. Out of the eighteen designs we analyzed with FEA, we found that the monobloc oval doughnut-like Bionate 80A nucleus replacement reproduced best the biomechanics of the natural disc nucleus and had the lowest subsidence risk as it transmits the load to the ring apophysis. Furthermore, implanting it through the annulotomy required to perform a lumbar microdiscectomy should be possible due to its elasticity. Furthermore, due to its elasticity implanting it through the average annulotomy required to perform a lumbar microdiscectomy should be possible.

Study design: Biomechanical study of a nucleus replacement with a finite element model. Objective: To validate a Bionate 80A ring-shaped nucleus replacement. Methods: The ANSYS lumbar spine model made from lumbar spine X-rays and magnetic resonance images obtained from cadaveric spine specimens were used. All materials were assumed homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic. We studied three options: intact spine, nucleotomy, and nucleus implant. Two loading conditions were evaluated at L₃-L₄, L₄-L₅, and L₅-S₁ discs: a 1000 N axial compression load and this load after the addition of 8 Nm flexion moment in the sagittal plane plus 8 Nm axial rotation torque. Results: Maximum nucleus implant axial compression stresses in the range of 16–34 MPa and tensile stress in the range of 5–16 MPa, below Bionate 80A resistance were obtained. Therefore, there is little risk of permanent implant deformation or severe damage under normal loading conditions. Nucleotomy increased segment mobility, zygapophyseal joint and end plate pressures, and annulus stresses and strains. All these parameters were restored satisfactorily by nucleus replacement but never reached the intact status. In addition, annulus stresses and strains were lower with the nucleus implant than in the intact spine under axial compression and higher under complex loading conditions. Conclusions: Under normal loading conditions, there is a negligible risk of nucleus replacement, permanent deformation or severe damage. Nucleotomy increased segmental mobility, zygapophyseal joint pressures, and annulus stresses and strains. Nucleus replacement restored segmental mobility and zygapophyseal joint pressures close to the intact spine. End plate pressures were similar for the intact and nucleus implant conditions under both loading modes. Manufacturing customized nucleus implants is considered feasible, as satisfactory biomechanical performance is confirmed.