PURPOSE: Hydroxyapatite (HA) or titania nanostructures were applied on smooth titanium implant cylinders. The aim was to investigate whether nano-HA may result in enhanced osseointegration compared to nano-titania structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surface topography evaluation included detailed characterization of nano-size structures present at the implant surface combined with surface roughness parameters at the micro- and nanometer level of resolution. Microstructures were removed from the surface to ensure that bone response observed was dependent only on the nanotopography and/or chemistry of the surface. Early in vivo histological analyses of the bone response (4 weeks) were investigated in a rabbit model. RESULTS: In the present study, nano-titania-coated implants showed an increased coverage area and feature density, forming a homogenous layer compared to nano-HA implants. Bone contact values of the nano-titania implants showed a tendency to have a higher percentage as compared to the nano-HA implants (p = .1). CONCLUSION: Thus, no evidence of enhanced bone formation to nano-HA-modified implants was observed compared to nano-titania-modified implants. The presence of specific nanostructures dependent on the surface modification exhibiting different size and distribution did modulate in vivo bone response.
PURPOSE:Hydroxyapatite (HA) or titania nanostructures were applied on smooth titanium implant cylinders. The aim was to investigate whether nano-HA may result in enhanced osseointegration compared to nano-titania structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surface topography evaluation included detailed characterization of nano-size structures present at the implant surface combined with surface roughness parameters at the micro- and nanometer level of resolution. Microstructures were removed from the surface to ensure that bone response observed was dependent only on the nanotopography and/or chemistry of the surface. Early in vivo histological analyses of the bone response (4 weeks) were investigated in a rabbit model. RESULTS: In the present study, nano-titania-coated implants showed an increased coverage area and feature density, forming a homogenous layer compared to nano-HA implants. Bone contact values of the nano-titania implants showed a tendency to have a higher percentage as compared to the nano-HA implants (p = .1). CONCLUSION: Thus, no evidence of enhanced bone formation to nano-HA-modified implants was observed compared to nano-titania-modified implants. The presence of specific nanostructures dependent on the surface modification exhibiting different size and distribution did modulate in vivo bone response.
Authors: Fabio Variola; John B Brunski; Giovanna Orsini; Paulo Tambasco de Oliveira; Rima Wazen; Antonio Nanci Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Sichang Lu; Madison A P McGough; Stefanie M Shiels; Katarzyna J Zienkiewicz; Alyssa R Merkel; Joseph P Vanderburgh; Jeffry S Nyman; Julie A Sterling; David J Tennent; Joseph C Wenke; Scott A Guelcher Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Louise Rydén; Omar Omar; Anna Johansson; Ryo Jimbo; Anders Palmquist; Peter Thomsen Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 3.896