Premium
Titanium implant surface properties enhance osseointegration in ovariectomy induced osteoporotic rats without pharmacologic intervention
Author(s) -
Lotz Ethan M.,
Cohen David J.,
Schwartz Zvi,
Boyan Barbara D.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13575
Subject(s) - osseointegration , implant , materials science , biomedical engineering , titanium , rankl , dentistry , in vivo , medicine , activator (genetics) , surgery , metallurgy , receptor , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Objectives This study determined whether implant surfaces that promote osseointegration in normal rats can promote osseointegration in osteoporotic rats without pharmacologic intervention. Materials and Methods Virgin female 8‐month‐old CD Sprague Dawley rats ( N = 25) were ovariectomized. At 6 weeks, microstructured/non‐nanostructured/hydrophobic, microstructured/nanostructured/hydrophobic, or microstructured/nanostructured/hydrophilic Ti implants (Ø2.5 × 3.5 mm; Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were placed in the distal metaphysis of each femur. At 28 days, bone quality and implant osseointegration were assessed using microCT, histomorphometrics, and removal torque values (RTVs). Calvarial osteoblasts were isolated and cultured for 7 days on Ø15 mm Ti disks processed to exhibit similar surface characteristics as the implants used for the in vivo studies. The phenotype was assessed by measuring the production of osteocalcin, osteoprotegerin, osteopontin, BMP2, VEGF, and RANKL. Results Microstructured/nanostructured/hydrophilic implants promoted increased bone‐to‐implant contact and RTVs in vivo and increased osteoblastic marker production in vitro compared to microstructured/non‐nanostructured/hydrophobic and microstructured/nanostructured/hydrophobic implants, suggesting that osseointegration occurs in osteoporotic animals, and implant surface properties improve its rate. Conclusions Although all modified implants were able to osseointegrate in rats with OVX‐induced osteoporosis without pharmacologic intervention, the degree of osseointegration was greater around microstructured/nanostructured/hydrophilic implant surfaces. These results suggest that when appropriate microstructure is present, hydrophilicity has a greater influence on Ti implant osseointegration compared to nanostructures. Moreover, modified implant surfaces can exert their control over the altered bone turnover observed in osteoporotic patients to stimulate functional osseointegration. These results provide critical insight for developing implants with improved osseointegration in patients with metabolic disorders of bone remodeling.