Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21(03): 202-210
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1617362
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Does surface anodisation of titanium implants change osseointegration and make their extraction from bone any easier?

J. D. Langhoff
1   Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Equine Hospital, Vetsuisse Faculty ZH, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
,
J. Mayer
2   TECIM Technologies for Implants and Materials, Niederlenz, Switzerland
,
L. Faber
3   DePuy ACE SARL, LeLocle, Switzerland
,
S. B. Kaestner
4   Veterinary Anaesthesiology, Equine Hospital, Vetsuisse Faculty ZH, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
,
G. Guibert
5   Centre d’analyse par faisceau ionique (CAFI), Institut des Microtechnologies Appliquées-Arc Neode, La chaux-de-fonds, Switzerland
,
K. Zlinszky
1   Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Equine Hospital, Vetsuisse Faculty ZH, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
,
J. A. Auer
1   Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Equine Hospital, Vetsuisse Faculty ZH, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
,
B. von Rechenberg
1   Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Equine Hospital, Vetsuisse Faculty ZH, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 15 February 2008

Accepted 23 April 2008

Publication Date:
12 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Titanium implants have a tendency for high bone-implant bonding, and, in comparison to stainless steel implants are more difficult to remove. The current study was carried out to evaluate, i) the release strength of three selected anodized titanium surfaces with increased nanohardness and low roughness, and ii) bone-implant bonding in vivo. These modified surfaces were intended to give improved anchorage while facilitating easier removal of temporary implants. Material and methods: The new surfaces were referenced to a stainless steel implant and a standard titanium implant surface (TiMAX™). In a sheep limb model, healing period was 3 months. Bone-implant bonding was evaluated either biomechanically or histologically. Results: The new surface anodized screws demonstrated similar or slightly higher bone-implantcontact (BIC) and torque release forces than the titanium reference. The BIC of the stainless steel implants was significant lower than two of the anodized surfaces (p=0.04), but differences between stainless steel and all titanium implants in torque release forces were not significant (p=0.06). Conclusion: The new anodized titanium surfaces showed good bone-implant bonding despite a smooth surface and increased nanohardness. However, they failed to facilitate implant removal at 3 months.

Keywords

Titanium - anodised implants - removal torque - bone-implant bonding - sheep
 

  • References

  • 1 Walczak J, Shahgaldi F, Heatley F. In vivo corrosion of 316L stainless-steel hip implants: morphology and elemental compositions of corrosion products.. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 229-237.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Steinemann SG. Titanium--the material of choice? Periodontol 2000. 1998 17. 7-21.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Delplancke JL, Winand R. Galvanostatic anodization of titanium .1. Structures and compositions of the anodic films.. Electrochimica Acta 1988; 33: 1539-1549.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Aladjem A. Anodic oxidation of titanium and its alloys.. J Mater Sci 1973; 8: 688-704.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Reclaru L, Lerf R, Eschler PY. et al. Evaluation of corrosion on plasma sprayed and anodized titanium implants, both with and without bone cement.. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 3027-3038.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rodriguez R, Kim K, Ong JL. In vitro osteoblast response to anodized titanium and anodized titanium followed by hydrothermal treatment.. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003; 65: 352-358.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Son WW, Zhu X, Shin HI. et al. In vivo histological response to anodized and anodized/hydrothermally treated titanium implants.. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2003; 66: 520-525.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Degidi M, Perrotti V, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded titanium implants with a porous anodized surface with at least 36 months of follow-up.. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006; 8: 169-177.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pienkowski D, Stephens GC, Doers TM. et al. Multicycle mechanical performance of titanium and stainless steel transpedicular spine implants.. Spine 1998; 23: 782-788.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lee TK, Haynes RJ, Longo JA. et al. Pin removal in slipped capital femoral epiphysis: the unsuitability of titanium devices.. J Pediatr Orthop 1996; 16: 49-52.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Korovessis P, Baikousis A, Deligianni D. et al. Effectiveness of transfixation and length of instrumentation on titanium and stainless steel transpedicular spine implants.. J Spinal Disord 2001; 14: 109-117.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gerber I, Koch S, Zehnder T. et al. Effects of TiMAX™ on growth and differentiation of human osteoblastlike cells under serum-free culture conditions.. European Cells and Materials 2005; 10: 6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Haidukewych G, Sems SA, Huebner D. et al. Results of polyaxial locked-plate fixation of periarticular fractures of the knee.. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 614-620.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Burks JB, Comerford JS, Buk A. Additional uses of the DePuy TiMAX Spider Plate.. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2003; 93: 406-407 author reply 7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lausmaa J. Surface spectroscopic characterization of titanium implant materials.. Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 1996; 81: 343-361.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aerssens J, Boonen S, Lowet G. et al. Interspecies differences in bone composition, density, and quality: potential implications for in vivo bone research.. Endocrinology 1998; 139: 663-670.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Guibert G, Munnik F, Langhoff JD. et al. Study of new sheep bone and Zn/Ca ratio around TiAlV screw: PIXE-RBS analysis.. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms.. 2008 .
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nunamaker D, Perren S. Experimental models of fracture repair.. Clin Orthop 1998; 355: 56-65.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Theiss F, Apelt D, Brand B. et al. Biocompatibility and resorption of a brushite calcium phosphate cement.. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 4383-4394.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 El-Warrak AO, Olmstead M, Schneider R. et al. An experimental animal model of aseptic loosening of hip prostheses in sheep to study early biochemical changes at the interface membrane.. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2004 5: 7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Huang YH, Xiropaidis AV, Sorensen RG. et al. Bone formation at titanium porous oxide (TiUnite) oral implants in type IV bone.. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 105-111.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fini M, Nicoli Aldini N, Torricelli P. et al. A new austenitic stainless steel with negligible nickel content: an in vitro and in vivo comparative investigation.. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 4929-4939.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants.. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 537-552.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S. et al. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis.. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2004; 15: 401-412.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ungersbock A, Pohler OEM, Perren SM. Evaluation of soft tissue reactions at the interface of titanium limited contact dynamic compression plate implants with different surface treatments: an experimental sheep study.. Biomaterials 1996; 17: 797-806.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rocca M, Fini M, Giavaresi G. et al. Tibial implants: biomechanical and histomorphometric studies of hydroxyapatite-coated and uncoated stainless steel and titanium screws in long-term ovariectomized sheep.. Int J Artif Organs 2001; 24: 649-654.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fini M, Savarino L, Nicoli Aldini N. et al. Biomechanical and histomorphometric investigations on two morphologically differing titanium surfaces with and without fluorohydroxyapatite coating: an experimental study in sheep tibiae.. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 3183-3192.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Seligson D, Mehta S, Mishra AK. et al. In vivo study of stainless steel and Ti-13Nb-13Zr bone plates in a sheep model.. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997; 213-223.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wennerberg A, Ektessabi A, Albrektsson T. et al. A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone.. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12: 486-494.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van’ t Hof MA. et al. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review.. J Dent Res 2006; 85: 496-500.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Eriksson C, Nygren H, Ohlson K. Implantation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium discs in rat tibia: cellular reactions on the surfaces during the first 3 weeks in bone.. Biomaterials 2004; 25: 4759-4766.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zinger O, Zhao G, Schwartz Z. et al. Differential regulation of osteoblasts by substrate microstructural features.. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 1837-1847.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 1--review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them.. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 536-543.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar