z-logo
Premium
Coralline hydroxyapatite granules inferior to morselized allograft around uncemented porous Ti implants: Unchanged fixation by addition of concentrated autologous bone marrow aspirate
Author(s) -
Baas Jorgen,
Svaneby Dea,
Jensen Thomas Bo,
Elmengaard Brian,
Bechtold Joan,
Soballe Kjeld
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part a
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.849
H-Index - 150
eISSN - 1552-4965
pISSN - 1549-3296
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.a.33156
Subject(s) - materials science , fixation (population genetics) , porosity , biomedical engineering , bone transplantation , dentistry , composite material , surgery , medicine , population , environmental health
We compared early fixation of titanium implants grafted with impacted allograft bone or coralline hydroxyapatite (HA) granules (Pro Osteon 200) with and without the addition of concentrated bone marrow cells (BMC). Autologous bone marrow aspirate was centrifuged to increase the BMC concentration. Four nonloaded cylindrical, porous coated titanium implants with a circumferential gap of 2.3 mm were inserted in the proximal humeri of eight dogs. Coralline HA granules +/− BMC were impacted around the two implants on one side, and allograft +/− BMC was impacted around the contra lateral implants. Observation time was 4 weeks. The implants surrounded by allograft bone had a three‐fold better fixation than the HA‐grafted implants. The concentration of BMC after centrifugation was increased with a factor 2.1. The addition of BMC to either of the bone graft materials had no statistically significant effects on implant fixation. The allografted implants were well osseointegrated, whereas the HA‐grafted implants were largely encapsulated in fibrous tissue. The addition of concentrated autologous BMCs to the graft material had no effect on implant fixation. The HA‐grafted implants were poorly anchored compared with allografted implants, suggesting that coralline HA granules should be considered a bone graft extender rather than a bone graft substitute. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 99A: 9–15, 2011.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here