Biological and Biomechanical Properties of Chemically Modified SLA Titanium Implants In Vitro and In Vivo

Abstract:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the interface shear strength and the responses of osteoblast-like cells to titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface modified by alkali and heat treatments (SLA-AH). The implants with machined and SLA surface served as controls. Each type of implant was characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray (EDX) analysis. In vitro assays were made using human osteoblast-like cell culture on different surfaces. The rectangle plates were also transcortically implanted into the proximal metaphysis of New Zealand White rabbit tibiae. After 4, 8 and 12 weeks implantation, mechanical and histological assessments were performed to evaluate biomechanical and biological behavior in vivo. By SEM examination, SLA surface combined with AH treatments revealed a macro-rough surface with finely microporous structure. The in vitro assays showed that the SLA-AH surfaces exhibited more extensive cell deposition and improved cell proliferation as compared with controls. Pull-out test demonstrated that the SLA-AH treated implants had a higher mechanical strength than the controls at all interval time after implantation. Histologically, the test implants revealed a significantly greater percentage of bone-implant contact when compared with controls. The results of this study suggest that a useful approach by combined processes could optimize implant surfaces for bone deposition and produce distinct biological surface features.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 309-311)
• Pages: 399-402
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.309-311.399
• Online since: May 2006
• Authors: Yan Bo Feng, Wei Qi Yan, Di Sheng Yang, Jie Feng, Xiao Xiang Wang, Sam Zhang
• Keywords: Biomechanical Test, Cell Culture, Surface Modification, Titanium (Ti)

References

[1] Wieland M, IN: Bone engineering, edited by Davies JE., Toronto(2000).

[2] Lind M, Overgaard S, Bunger C, Soballe K.: Biomaterials. May; 20(1999 ): pp.803-8.

[3] Wilke HJ, Claes L, Steinemann S, in: Clinical implant materials edited by Heimke. 9 of Adv Biomater. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

[4] Buser D., Broggini N., Wieland M.: J Dent Res. 83(2004): p.529.

[5] Klokkevold PR, Nishimura RD, Adachi A.: Clin Oral Implants Res. 8(1997): p.442.

[6] Yan WQ, Nakamura T, Kawanabe K, Oka M, Kokubo T.: Biomaterials. 18(1997): p.1185.

[7] Hyup Lee J, Ryu HS, Lee DS, Sun Hong K, Lee CK.: Biomaterials. 26 (2005 ): p.3249.

[8] Duchene P, Cuckler JM: Clin Orthop Vol. 176(1992), p.102.

[9] Weiqi Yan, Takashi Nakamura, HM. Kim, T. Kokubo.: J Biomed Mater Res. 37(1997): p.267.