Influence of pores created by laser superfinishing on osseointegration of titanium alloy implants

• Published in: Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A Vol. 69A; no. 3; pp. 444 - 453
• Main Authors: Stangl, R., Pries, A., Loos, B., Müller, M., Erben, R. G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.06.2004
• Subjects: Animals; Biocompatible Materials - metabolism; copper vapor laser; Femur - cytology; Femur - physiology; histomorphometry; Lasers; Male; Materials Testing; Osseointegration; pore size; Porosity; Prostheses and Implants; Rabbits; Surface Properties; Titanium - metabolism; titanium implants
• ISSN: 1549-3296; 1552-4965
• DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.30013

The aim of this study was to assess the osseointegration of copper vapor laser–superfinished titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) implants with pore sizes of 25, 50, and 200 μm in a rabbit intramedullary model. Control implants were prepared by corundum blasting. Each animal received all four different implants in both femora and humeri. Using static and dynamic histomorphometry, the bone–implant interface and the peri‐implant bone tissue were examined 3, 6, and 12 weeks postimplantation. Among the laser‐superfinished implants, total bone–implant contact was smallest for the 25‐μm pores, and was similar for 50‐ and 200‐μm pore sizes at all time points. However, all laser‐superfinished surfaces were inferior to corundum‐blasted (CB) control implants in terms of bone–implant contact. Within the 12‐week study period, remodeling of woven bone initially formed within pores occurred only in the implants with 200‐μm pores. Implants with 25‐μm pores showed the highest amount of peri‐implant bone volume at all time points, indicating that the amount of peri‐implant bone was not correlated with the quality of the bone–implant interface. At 3 and 6 weeks postsurgery, we did not find any differences in mineral apposition rates or bone formation rates between the various implant surfaces. However, the peri‐implant bone formation rate at the end of the trial was 70 and 62% higher in implants with 50‐ and 200‐μm pores compared with CB implants, respectively. We conclude that, although laser‐superfinished implants were not superior to CB control implants in terms of osseointegration, our study has provided further insights into the mechanisms of bone remodeling within pores of various sizes, and may form a basis for future experiments to design optimal implant surfaces with the help of modern laser technology. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 69A: 444–453, 2004