Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/10813740
Switch to
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
lifeskim:mentions | |
pubmed:issue |
1
|
pubmed:dateCreated |
2000-9-25
|
pubmed:abstractText |
Achieving a stable bone-implant interface is an important factor in the long-term outcome of joint arthroplasty. In this study, we employed an ovine bicortical model to compare the bone-healing response to five different surfaces on titanium alloy implants: grit blasted (GB), grit blasted plus hydroxyapatite (50 microm thick) coating (GBHA), Porocoat(R) (PC), Porocoat(R) with HA (PCHA) and smooth (S). Push-out testing, histology, and backscatter scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging were employed to assess the healing response at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Push-out testing revealed PC and PCHA surfaces resulted in significantly greater mechanical fixation over all other implant types at all time points (p <.05). HA coating on the grit-blasted surface significantly improved fixation at 8 and 12 weeks (p <.05). The addition of HA onto the porous coating did not significantly improve fixation in this model. Quantification of ingrowth/ongrowth from SEM images revealed that HA coating of the grit-blasted surfaces resulted in significantly more ongrowth at 4 weeks (p <.05).
|
pubmed:language |
eng
|
pubmed:journal | |
pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
pubmed:chemical |
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/chemical/Alloys,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/chemical/Biocompatible Materials,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/chemical/Durapatite,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/chemical/Titanium,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/chemical/titanium alloy (TiAl6V4)
|
pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
pubmed:month |
Jul
|
pubmed:issn |
0021-9304
|
pubmed:author | |
pubmed:copyrightInfo |
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
|
pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
pubmed:volume |
51
|
pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
pubmed:pagination |
15-22
|
pubmed:dateRevised |
2006-11-15
|
pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Alloys,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Animals,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Biocompatible Materials,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Durapatite,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Implants, Experimental,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Male,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Microscopy, Electron, Scanning,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Porosity,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Sheep,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Stress, Mechanical,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Surface Properties,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Time Factors,
pubmed-meshheading:10813740-Titanium
|
pubmed:year |
2000
|
pubmed:articleTitle |
Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of titanium implant integration: comparison of five surface structures.
|
pubmed:affiliation |
Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, Room 2-41, Level 2, South Wing, Edmund Blacket Building, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, University of New South Wales, 2031, Sydney, Australia.
|
pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Comparative Study
|