| Literature DB >> 22400715 |
Michael Plecko1, Christine Sievert, Daniel Andermatt, Robert Frigg, Peter Kronen, Karina Klein, Stefan Stübinger, Katja Nuss, Alexander Bürki, Stephen Ferguson, Ulrich Stoeckle, Brigitte von Rechenberg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the present study, 4 different metallic implant materials, either partly coated or polished, were tested for their osseointegration and biocompatibility in a pelvic implantation model in sheep.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22400715 PMCID: PMC3315746 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-32
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
The table describes the different materials tested in this study.
| Material of Implant | abbreviation |
|---|---|
| Stainless Steel | Steel |
| Cobalt-Chrome | CC |
| Cobalt-Chrome/Titanium coating | CCTC |
| Cobalt-Chrome/Zirconium/Titanium coating | CCZTC |
| Pure Titanium Standard | PTST |
| Titanium-Aluminium-Niobium (TAN) Standard | TANST |
| Titanium-Aluminium-Niobium (TAN) new finish | TANNEW |
Stainless steel and pure titanium were used as negative and positive controls
Figure 1The type of screw that was used for the all materials tested is pictured. It was a standard, not self-tapping cortical screw design with a head fit for a SD15 Stardrive screwdriver. Screws were 14 mm in length and had a diameter of 3.5 mm with a core of 2.5 mm.
Figure 2Figure 2a shows the aluminum template in place. The proximal end is fixed to the iliac crest. The small wedges at the sides of the template are equally spaced and alternating on the dorsal and distal site along the linea glutea of the iliac shaft. The drill hole is slightly angled (Figure 2b) to catch the most volume of cancellous bone and not to penetrate the transcortex. At the side a picture of a split pelvis demonstrates the depth of the cancellous bone along the linea glutea. All 9 screws are inserted (Fi.2c) along the linea glutea (Situs before closure of the soft tissue).
Figure 3The zone directly adjacent to the implant was measured within the thread part, whereas the zone far to the implant extended for the same size into the adjacent trabecular bone.
Figure 4The BIC measurements are demonstrated in this picture. The green line indicates the total length of the thread measured. The red line measured the direct contact between bone and implant. Final results were given as percentage of BIC to the total area measured.
Figure 5The microradiographs allow visualization of calcified area, resp. bone resorption along the implant. Most of the specimens showed a slight increase in bone density along the implant and no bone resorption.
Results of the torque removal tests are shown as mean values and standard deviations in Nmm.
| Type of screw | Removal Torque in Nmm | N | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTST | 270.9 | 87.3 | 9 |
| TANNEW | 259.9 | 100.1 | 9 |
| CCZTC | 246.6 | 96.9 | 9 |
| CCTC | 245.6 | 91.1 | 8 |
| TANST | 234.0 | 55.8 | 9 |
| Steel | 155.8 | 83.6 | 9 |
| CC | 130.1 | 45.8 | 7 |
Note that Steel and cobalt-chrome have the lowest values compared to all other titanium or zirconium based implants. Statistically significant differences were found only for chrome cobalt compared to pure titanium screws (p = 0.031) (N = number of screws tested per group)
Figure 6An overview of ground sections (PMMA embedding, surface staining with toluidine blue), native fluorescence sections and microradiographs is given for all groups. Note the similar appearance for all titanium based or zirconium or titanium coated implants. Differences exist for steel and cobalt chrome implants.
Histomorphometrical measurements of old and new bone matrix and granulation tissue are given in percentage of measured area.
| Type of screw | Zone* | old matrix % | new matrix % | granulation tissue% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC | Z1 | 4.5 ± 3.8 | 38.6 ± 7.1 | 56.9 ± 8.8 |
| Z2 | 17.9 ± 7.5 | 43.9 ± 8.5 | 38.2 ± 11.7 | |
| CCTC | Z1 | 7.0 ± 6.8 | 42.8 ± 9.9 | 50.2 ± 13.5 |
| Z2 | 20.9 ± 12.1 | 41.7 ± 6.1 | 37.4 ± 11.7 | |
| CCZTC | Z1 | 5.8 ± 4.1 | 44.6 ± 10.5 | 49.6 ± 12.3 |
| Z2 | 15.5 ± 8.0 | 42.7 ± 9.6 | 41.8 ± 11.6 | |
| PTST | Z1 | 5.2 ± 5.5 | 45.2 ± 8.8 | 49.5 ± 11.1 |
| Z2 | 18.2 ± 9.4 | 39.5 ± 10.6 | 42.3 ± 10.3 | |
| Steel | Z1 | 6.0 ± 5.5 | 45.5 ± 12.5 | 48.6 ± 15.1 |
| Z2 | 18.0 ± 9.9 | 42.4 ± 9.6 | 39.6 ± 9.6 | |
| TANNEW | Z1 | 6.6 ± 6.0 | 47.8 ± 11.5 | 45.6 ± 11.2 |
| Z2 | 16.3 ± 7.9 | 41.7 ± 10.6 | 42.0 ± 13.2 | |
| TANST | Z1 | 4.7 ± 4.5 | 46.2 ± 8.1 | 49.2 ± 9.1 |
| Z2 | 17.7 ± 7.8 | 41.3 ± 6.3 | 41.0 ± 9.7 | |
The values are given corresponding to zones (Z1 = adjacent to implant, Z2 = far from implant). All implants show similar values with no significant differences found between groups. Values measured for granulation tissue correspond with those found in normal bone, while the relatively high percentage of new bone matrix indicates new bone formation and activity of osseointegration. The largest difference is seen for the old bone matrix indicating that bone resorption as an answer to the original surgical trauma is more intensive close to the implant. Also the granulation tissue is less in the zone farther away from the implant
*Z1 = close to implant Z2 = far from implant
The bone-implant-contact (BIC) measurements of threads is demonstrated.
| Type of screw | BIC in % | ± in % |
|---|---|---|
| CCZTC | 39.1 | 22.4 |
| TANNEW | 38.0 | 23.5 |
| PTST | 36.5 | 23.5 |
| TANST | 34.8 | 22.0 |
| CCTC | 33.6 | 23.1 |
| Steel | 23.2 | 18.8 |
| CC | 14.0 | 13.6 |
Note that steel and cobalt chrome have significantly less contact compared to all other type of materials. The chrome based implants either coated with zirconium (CCZTC) or titanium (CCTC) show equal BIC values than the other titanium based screw implants