Bonding of chemically treated titanium implants to bone

Abstract

A study was undertaken in rabbit tibiae to determine the effects of chemical treatments and/or surface-induced bonelike apatite on the bone-bonding ability of titanium (Ti) implants. Smooth-surfaced plates (10 x 10 x 2 mm) of pure Ti, alkalil- and heat-treated Ti, and bonelike apatite-formed Ti after the treatments were implanted into the tibial metaphyses of mature rabbits. The tibiae containing the implants were harvested at 4, 8, and 16 weeks after implantation and subjected to a tensile testing and histologic evaluation. Biomechanical results showed that both treated implants exhibited significantly higher failure loads compared with untreated Ti implants at all time periods. Histologic examination by Giemsa surface staining, contact microradiography (CMR), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in backscatter mode revealed that both treated Ti implants directly bonded to bone tissue during the early postimplantation period, whereas untreated Ti implants formed direct contact with the bone only at 16 weeks. SEM-electron-probe microanalysis (EPMA) examination showed a Ca-P-rich layer at the interface between the treated implants and bone, although the Ca-P-rich layer was not detected on the surface of untreated implants during observation periods. The results of this study suggest that chemical treatments may accelerate the bone-bonding behavior of titanium implants and enhance the strength of bone-implant bonding by inducing a bioactive surface layer on Ti implants.

High-resolution three-dimensional probes of biomaterials and their interfaces

“…Clearly, there has been much research in the field of tailoring titanium dioxide coatings to improve bone integration by means of mechanical methods, chemical (alkaline, acidic, sol-gel, hydrogen peroxide) treatments, physical methods (plasma spraying, evaporation, sputtering) and heat treatment [62], among others [57]. In addition to a desirable chemical composition, a suitable coating morphology may increase bone growth while increasing functionality.…”

Biological Reactions to Dental Implants

“…The main limitation of this technique consists of the experiment duration: the results of an experiment can be obtained after two three weeks, since the materials that temporarily blocks cell division can be classified as cytotoxic if cells are prematurely processed. (Yan et al, 1997) To achieve ranking as cytotoxicity of biomaterials, it is necessary to apply quantitative methods. They are necessary also if biomaterials' cataloguing is required, but if it is imperative to have an answer for validation or invalidation of a product, while the morphological and qualitative methods provide important information, and can not dictate such a decision; qualitative methods can be used only to characterize the biomaterials.…”

Development and Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Implant for Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease

“…Due to the limitations of the glass-ceramic implant mentioned above, we have been developing a new type of implant combining bioactive properties and higher mechanical resistance in cooperation with LASAK Company since 1998. Characteristics of this material (higher strength, bioactivity) have provided optimal implant characteristics for PLIF (Yan, 1997;Strnad, 2010). The material used for this implant is technically pure titanium (grade 3) which is dedicated for surgical implants (Regulation ISO 5832-2:1993(E): Implants for surgery, ISO 5835-2).…”