Premium
Effect of Hydroxyapatite and Titania Nanostructures on Early In Vivo Bone Response
Author(s) -
Meirelles Luiz,
Melin Lory,
Peltola Timo,
Kjellin Per,
Kangasniemi Ilkka,
Currie Fredrik,
Andersson Martin,
Albrektsson Tomas,
Wennerberg Ann
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00089.x
Subject(s) - nanotopography , osseointegration , materials science , nanostructure , nano , titanium , surface roughness , in vivo , implant , surface finish , biomedical engineering , nanotechnology , composite material , metallurgy , medicine , surgery , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Purpose: Hydroxyapatite (HA) or titania nanostructures were applied on smooth titanium implant cylinders. The aim was to investigate whether nano‐HA may result in enhanced osseointegration compared to nano‐titania structures. Materials and Methods: Surface topography evaluation included detailed characterization of nano‐size structures present at the implant surface combined with surface roughness parameters at the micro‐ and nanometer level of resolution. Microstructures were removed from the surface to ensure that bone response observed was dependent only on the nanotopography and/or chemistry of the surface. Early in vivo histological analyses of the bone response (4 weeks) were investigated in a rabbit model. Results: In the present study, nano‐titania‐coated implants showed an increased coverage area and feature density, forming a homogenous layer compared to nano‐HA implants. Bone contact values of the nano‐titania implants showed a tendency to have a higher percentage as compared to the nano‐HA implants ( p = .1). Conclusion: Thus, no evidence of enhanced bone formation to nano‐HA‐modified implants was observed compared to nano‐titania‐modified implants. The presence of specific nanostructures dependent on the surface modification exhibiting different size and distribution did modulate in vivo bone response.