header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

EFFECT OF HYDROXYAPATITE COATING ON TITANIUM FOAM SUBSTRATES



Abstract

Introduction and Aims: Titanium foam implants simulate the trabecular structure of bone to maximise porous space for bone ingrowth. Plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings work well on non-porous substrates but do not coat the inner surfaces of open-porous substrates. Chemical deposition is an attractive alternative that produces consistent coats on porous surfaces.

Method: Titanium foam cylinders (5mm diameter by 25mm length) were implanted bilaterally in 40 rabbit femurs. Twenty implants were coated with 20 microns of hydroxyapatite (T-HA) by electrochemical deposition while 20 implants had no hydroxyapatite coat (T). Osseointegration was measured at six and 12 weeks by automated computerised histomorphometry of scanning electron microscopy images of sections taken through the implant at two levels: diaphyseal and metaphyseal. Bone ingrowth was quantified in the pores and was also measured up to 1mm beyond the surface of the implant to determine the pattern of bone growth.

Results: For the T-HA surface, bone ingrowth increased from 35.0 ±8.5 % at six weeks to 41.5 ± 7.4 % at 12 weeks (p < 0.05). For the T surface, bone growth was 14.1 ± 8.8% at six weeks and 11.4 ± 4.2 % at 12 weeks. At both time points mean bone ingrowth was significantly different between hydroxyapatite-coated and non-hydroxyapatite-coated implants, (p< 0.01). No significant differences were noted between the diaphyseal and metaphyseal bone response.

Conclusion: For the T-HA surface, bone ingrowth increased from 35.0 ±8.5 % at six weeks to 41.5 ± 7.4 % at 12 weeks (p < 0.05). For the T surface, bone growth was 14.1 ± 8.8% at six weeks and 11.4 ± 4.2 % at 12 weeks. At both time points mean bone ingrowth was significantly different between hydroxyapatite-coated and non-hydroxyapatite-coated implants, (p< 0.01). No significant differences were noted between the diaphyseal and metaphyseal bone response.

These abstracts were prepared by Editorial Secretary, George Sikorski. Correspondence should be addressed to Australian Orthopaedic Association, Ground Floor, The William Bland Centre, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.

At least one of the authors is receiving or has received material benefits or support from a commercial source.