Effect of Ti6Al4V Alloy Surface and Porosity on Bone Osseointegration: In Vivo Pilot Study in Rabbits
Unmodified Ti6Al4V can osseointegrate, but sometimes this capacity needs to be improved. This study aimed to see how much porosity improves osseointegration in a Ti6Al4V implant. Three types of Ti6Al4V cylindrical-shaped implants (13.00 mm length x 5.00 mm diameter) were evaluated: solid sandblasted...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (FISABIO) |
| Repositorio: | r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:fisabio.fundanetsuite.com:p18874 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://fisabio.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/18874 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | bone-implant interactions osseointegration bone-implant interface implant surface design titanium implants porous implants |
| Sumario: | Unmodified Ti6Al4V can osseointegrate, but sometimes this capacity needs to be improved. This study aimed to see how much porosity improves osseointegration in a Ti6Al4V implant. Three types of Ti6Al4V cylindrical-shaped implants (13.00 mm length x 5.00 mm diameter) were evaluated: solid sandblasted acid-etched, sintered, and porous 3D-printed (681.00 mu m average pore size). Fifteen 20-week-old nullipara female parasite-free New Zealand California white rabbits were used, employing the femoral condyle defect model and undertaking mu -CT analysis and pull-out testing eight weeks later. On mu -CT densitometric analysis, the solid sandblasted rod showed the highest new bone growth around the implant. Bone growth was higher inside the implants for the porous 3D-printed (54.00 +/- 5.00 mm3) than for the sintered (1.00 +/- 0.05 mm3) and zero for the sandblasted implants. In the pull-out test, there were no statistically significant differences in the ANOVA analysis between the sintered (900.00 N +/- 310.00 N) and porous 3D-printed (700.00 N +/- 220.00 N) implants. Such differences did exist between the sandblasted material (220.00 N +/- 50.00 N) and the two other materials (sintered p 0.002, porous p 0.034). The porous 3D-printed and sintered implant pull-out strength were significantly better than that of the solid rod sandblasted implant. Still, there were no statistically significant differences between the first two. |
|---|