Optimal Surface Roughness of an Implant to Generate Osseointegration and Biological Fixation
Article Sidebar
Published:
Oct 17, 2024
Keywords:
Roughness, osseointegration, titanium, thermal projection
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: The use of rough surfaces for biological fixation in implants is an increasingly common alternative. The aim of this study is to determine the optimal surface roughness of an intramedullary implant to promote osseointegration and subsequent biological fixation, using thermal arc projection and rabbit femurs as a biological receptor model.
Materials and Methods: Cylindrical intramedullary systems with rough titanium coatings were implanted with varying degrees of roughness to assess where optimal osseointegration occurs, using the femurs of six rabbits (unilateral). The osseointegration process was monitored through monthly radiographs and histopathological analysis of the femur specimens.
Results: No migration or subsidence occurred in any of the implants. Radiographic evidence of osseointegration was observed in all femurs. Bone formation was established around all implants. However, a mechanical test to evaluate the strength of the adhesion to the bone could not be performed.
Conclusion: Surfaces with a roughness >100 µm have shown a favorable biological response, demonstrating a direct bond between the implant surface and the bone.
Materials and Methods: Cylindrical intramedullary systems with rough titanium coatings were implanted with varying degrees of roughness to assess where optimal osseointegration occurs, using the femurs of six rabbits (unilateral). The osseointegration process was monitored through monthly radiographs and histopathological analysis of the femur specimens.
Results: No migration or subsidence occurred in any of the implants. Radiographic evidence of osseointegration was observed in all femurs. Bone formation was established around all implants. However, a mechanical test to evaluate the strength of the adhesion to the bone could not be performed.
Conclusion: Surfaces with a roughness >100 µm have shown a favorable biological response, demonstrating a direct bond between the implant surface and the bone.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
Article Details
How to Cite
Vega, C. A., Moruno, F., & Veneri, D. (2024). Optimal Surface Roughness of an Implant to Generate Osseointegration and Biological Fixation. Revista De La Asociación Argentina De Ortopedia Y Traumatología, 89(5), 507-518. https://doi.org/10.15417/issn.1852-7434.2024.89.5.1930
Section
Basic Research
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Ortopedia y Traumatología
Manuscript acceptance by the Journal implies the simultaneous non-submission to any other journal or publishing house. The RAAOT is under the Licencia Creative Commnos Atribución-NoComercial-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual 4.0 Internacional (CC-BY-NC.SA 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es). Articles can be shared, copied, distributed, modified, altered, transformed into a derivative work, executed and publicly communicated, provided a) the authors and the original publication (Journal, Publisher and URL) are mentioned, b) they are not used for commercial purposes, c) the same terms of the license are maintained.
In the event that the manuscript is approved for its next publication, the authors retain the copyright and will assign to the journal the rights of publication, edition, reproduction, distribution, exhibition and communication at a national and international level in the different databases. data, repositories and portals.
It is hereby stated that the mentioned manuscript has not been published and that it is not being printed in any other national or foreign journal.
The authors hereby accept the necessary modifications, suggested by the reviewers, in order to adapt the manuscript to the style and publication rules of this Journal.
References
1. Park JB. Orthopedic prosthesis fixation. Ann Biomed Eng 1992;20(6):583-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02368607
2. Yamada H, Yoshihara Y, Henmi O, Morita M, Shiromoto Y, Kawano T, et al. Cementless total hip replacement: past, present, and future. J Orthop Sci 2009;14(2):228-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-008-1317-4
3. Bobyn JD, Tanzer M, Miller JE. Fundamental principles of biologic fixation. En: Morrey BF (ed). Reconstructive
surgery of the joints. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1996, p. 75-94.
4. Svehla M, Morberg P, Zicat B, Bruce W, Sonnabend D, Walsh WR. Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of
titanium implant integration: comparison of five surface structures. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;51(1):15-22.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(200007)51:1<15::aid-jbm3>3.0.co;2-9
5. Brånemark R, Brånemark PI, Rydevik B, Myers RR. Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001;38(2):175-81. PMID: 11392650
6. Daugaard H, Elmengaard B, Bechtold JE, Jensen T, Soballe K. The effect on bone growth enhancement of implant coatings with hydroxyapatite and collagen deposited electrochemically and by plasma spray. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010;92(3):913-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32303
7. Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface
mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81(5):907-14. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.81b5.9283
8. Hench LL, Best S. Ceramics, glasses and glass-ceramics. En: Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE
(eds). Biomaterials science. An introduction to materials in medicine. 2a ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc.; 2004, p.153-70.
9. Fyhrie DP, Carter DR, Schurman DJ. Effects of ingrowth, geometry, and material on stress transfer under porouscoated hip surface replacements. J Orthop Res 1988;6(3):425-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100060314
10. Cooley DR, Van Dellen AF, Burgess JO, Windeler AS. The advantages of coated titanium implants prepared by
radiofrequency sputtering from hydroxyapatite. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(1):93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90057-h
11. Davies JE. Bone bonding at natural and biomaterial surfaces. Biomaterials 2007;28(34):5058-67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.049
12. Spector M. Bone ingrowth into porous metals. En: Williams DF (ed). Biocompatibility of orthopaedic implants.
Florida: CRC Press; 1982, p. 89-128.
13. Haddad RJ Jr, Cook SD, Thomas KA. Biological fixation of porous-coated implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am
1987;69(9):1459-66. PMID: 3326881
14. Fernández J, Gilemany JM, Gaona M. La proyección térmica en la obtención de recubrimientos biocompatibles
ventajas de la proyección térmica por alta velocidad (HVOF) sobre la proyección térmica por plasma atmosférico
(APS). CPT Centro de Proyección Térmica. Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Metalúrgica. Universidad de
Barcelona; 2005, vol. 13, p. 16-39. https://doi:10.5821/sibb.v13i1.1726
15. Hara D, Nakashima Y, Sato T, Hirata M, Kanazawa M, Kohno Y, et al. Bone bonding strength of diamond-structured porous titanium-alloy implants manufactured using the electron beam-melting technique. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016;59:1047-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.11.025
16. Hulbert SF, Cooke FW, Klawitter JJ, Leonard RB, Sauer BW, Moyle DD, et al. Attachment of prostheses to the
musculoskeletal system by tissue ingrowth and mechanical interlocking. J Biomed Mater Res 1973;7(3):1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820070303
17. Klawitter JJ, Weinstein AM. The status of porous materials to obtain direct skeletal attachment by tissue ingrowth. Acta Orthop Belg 1974;40:755-65. PMID: 4469737
18. Li J, Liao H, Fartash B, Hermansson L, Johnsson T. Surface-dimpled commercially pure titanium implant and bone ingrowth. Biomaterials 1997;18(9):691-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(96)00185-8
19. Götz HE, Müller M, Emmel A, Holzwarth U, Erben RG, Stangl R. Effect of surface finish on the osseointegration of laser-treated titanium alloy implants. Biomaterials 2004;25:4057-64. https://doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.002
2. Yamada H, Yoshihara Y, Henmi O, Morita M, Shiromoto Y, Kawano T, et al. Cementless total hip replacement: past, present, and future. J Orthop Sci 2009;14(2):228-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-008-1317-4
3. Bobyn JD, Tanzer M, Miller JE. Fundamental principles of biologic fixation. En: Morrey BF (ed). Reconstructive
surgery of the joints. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1996, p. 75-94.
4. Svehla M, Morberg P, Zicat B, Bruce W, Sonnabend D, Walsh WR. Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of
titanium implant integration: comparison of five surface structures. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;51(1):15-22.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(200007)51:1<15::aid-jbm3>3.0.co;2-9
5. Brånemark R, Brånemark PI, Rydevik B, Myers RR. Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001;38(2):175-81. PMID: 11392650
6. Daugaard H, Elmengaard B, Bechtold JE, Jensen T, Soballe K. The effect on bone growth enhancement of implant coatings with hydroxyapatite and collagen deposited electrochemically and by plasma spray. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010;92(3):913-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32303
7. Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface
mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81(5):907-14. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.81b5.9283
8. Hench LL, Best S. Ceramics, glasses and glass-ceramics. En: Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE
(eds). Biomaterials science. An introduction to materials in medicine. 2a ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc.; 2004, p.153-70.
9. Fyhrie DP, Carter DR, Schurman DJ. Effects of ingrowth, geometry, and material on stress transfer under porouscoated hip surface replacements. J Orthop Res 1988;6(3):425-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100060314
10. Cooley DR, Van Dellen AF, Burgess JO, Windeler AS. The advantages of coated titanium implants prepared by
radiofrequency sputtering from hydroxyapatite. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(1):93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90057-h
11. Davies JE. Bone bonding at natural and biomaterial surfaces. Biomaterials 2007;28(34):5058-67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.049
12. Spector M. Bone ingrowth into porous metals. En: Williams DF (ed). Biocompatibility of orthopaedic implants.
Florida: CRC Press; 1982, p. 89-128.
13. Haddad RJ Jr, Cook SD, Thomas KA. Biological fixation of porous-coated implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am
1987;69(9):1459-66. PMID: 3326881
14. Fernández J, Gilemany JM, Gaona M. La proyección térmica en la obtención de recubrimientos biocompatibles
ventajas de la proyección térmica por alta velocidad (HVOF) sobre la proyección térmica por plasma atmosférico
(APS). CPT Centro de Proyección Térmica. Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Metalúrgica. Universidad de
Barcelona; 2005, vol. 13, p. 16-39. https://doi:10.5821/sibb.v13i1.1726
15. Hara D, Nakashima Y, Sato T, Hirata M, Kanazawa M, Kohno Y, et al. Bone bonding strength of diamond-structured porous titanium-alloy implants manufactured using the electron beam-melting technique. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016;59:1047-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.11.025
16. Hulbert SF, Cooke FW, Klawitter JJ, Leonard RB, Sauer BW, Moyle DD, et al. Attachment of prostheses to the
musculoskeletal system by tissue ingrowth and mechanical interlocking. J Biomed Mater Res 1973;7(3):1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820070303
17. Klawitter JJ, Weinstein AM. The status of porous materials to obtain direct skeletal attachment by tissue ingrowth. Acta Orthop Belg 1974;40:755-65. PMID: 4469737
18. Li J, Liao H, Fartash B, Hermansson L, Johnsson T. Surface-dimpled commercially pure titanium implant and bone ingrowth. Biomaterials 1997;18(9):691-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(96)00185-8
19. Götz HE, Müller M, Emmel A, Holzwarth U, Erben RG, Stangl R. Effect of surface finish on the osseointegration of laser-treated titanium alloy implants. Biomaterials 2004;25:4057-64. https://doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.002