Bone Tissue Response to Porous and Functionalized Titanium and Silica Based Coatings
Author Information
Author(s): Chaudhari Amol, Braem Annabel, Vleugels Jozef, Martens Johan A., Naert Ignace, Cardoso Marcio Vivan, Duyck Joke
Primary Institution: K. U. Leuven
Hypothesis
The test surfaces improve peri-implant bone formation and osseointegration compared to commercially pure Ti at two healing periods of 2 and 4 weeks.
Conclusion
BAG is highly osteogenic at a distance from the implant, while porous titanium coatings did not stimulate bone regeneration but allowed bone growth into the pores.
Supporting Evidence
- After 4 weeks, a higher bone area fraction was observed for BAG than CTR.
- BAF-100 for AMS was higher than BAG after 4 weeks.
- Bone-to-implant contact for AMS and BAG was lower after 4 weeks than after 2 weeks.
Takeaway
The study tested different coatings on implants in rabbits to see which helped bones grow better around them. Some coatings worked well, while others didn't help much.
Methodology
Six implants were randomly implanted in the tibiae of 20 New Zealand white rabbits, which were sacrificed after 2 or 4 weeks for histological and histomorphometrical analysis.
Limitations
The study does not conclude on the eventual effect of BAG on implant osseointegration due to the need for longer healing observations.
Participant Demographics
20 New Zealand white rabbits, average weight 3.91±0.29 kg.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.05
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website