RESEARCH ARTICLE


No Positive Effect of Acid Etching or Plasma Cleaning on Osseointegration of Titanium Implants in a Canine Femoral Condyle Press-Fit Model



H Saksø*, T Jakobsen, M Saksø, J Baas, SS Jakobsen, K Soballe
Department of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Norrebrogade 44, Aarhus, Denmark


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1560
Abstract HTML Views: 1044
PDF Downloads: 249
Total Views/Downloads: 2853
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 855
Abstract HTML Views: 679
PDF Downloads: 166
Total Views/Downloads: 1700



© Saksø et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/) which permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Norrebrogade 44, build. 1A, DK – 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; Tel: +45 2224 5095; Fax: +45 8949 4150; E-mail: hsak@dadlnet.dk


Abstract

Purpose:

Implant surface treatments that improve early osseointegration may prove useful in long-term survival of uncemented implants. We investigated Acid Etching and Plasma Cleaning on titanium implants.

Methods:

In a randomized, paired animal study, four porous coated Ti implants were inserted into the femurs of each of ten dogs.

  1. PC (Porous Coating; control)
  2. PC+PSHA (Plasma Sprayed Hydroxyapatite; positive control)
  3. PC+ET (Acid Etch)
  4. PC+ET+PLCN (Plasma Cleaning)

After four weeks mechanical fixation was evaluated by push-out test and osseointegration by histomorphometry.

Results:

The PSHA-coated implants were better osseointegrated than the three other groups on outer surface implant porosity (p<0.05) while there was no statistical difference in deep surface implant porosity when compared with nontreated implant. Within the deep surface implant porosity, there was more newly formed bone in the control group compared to the ET and ET+PCLN groups (p<0.05). In all compared groups, there was no statistical difference in any biomechanical parameter.

Conclusions:

In terms of osseointegration on outer surface implant porosity PC+PSHA was superior to the other three groups. Neither the acid etching nor the plasma cleaning offered any advantage in terms of implant osseointegration. There was no statistical difference in any of the biomechanical parameters among all groups in the press-fit model at 4 weeks of evaluation time.

Keywords: Acid etching, canine, osseointegration, plasma cleaning, press-fit, titanium implants.