4.3 Article

Bone bonding strength of diamond-structured porous titanium-alloy implants manufactured using the electron beam-melting technique

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.11.025

关键词

Electron beam-melting technique; Bone ingrowth; Push-out testing; Porous titanium-alloy; Ti-6Al-4V

资金

  1. Japan Society for Promotion of Science [15K10450]
  2. Kyocera Medical Corporation
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K10450] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study examined the bone bonding strength of diamond-structured porous titanium-alloy (Porous-Ti-alloy) manufactured using the electron beam-melting technique-in comparison with fiber mesh-coated or rough-surfaced implants. Cylindrical implants with four different pore sizes (500, 640, 800, and 1000 mu m) of Porous-Ti-alloy, titanium fiber mesh (FM), and surfaces roughened by titanium arc spray (Ti-spray) were implanted into the distal femur of rabbits. Bone bonding strength and histological bone ingrowth were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks after implantation. The bone bonding strength of Porous-Ti-alloy implants (640 pm pore size) increased over time from 541.4 N at 4 weeks to 704.6 N at 12 weeks and was comparable to that of FM and Ti-spray implants at both weeks. No breakage of the porous structure after mechanical testing was found with Porous-Ti-alloy implants. Histological bone ingrowth that increased with implantation time occurred along the inner structure of Porous-Ti-alloy implants. There was no difference in bone ingrowth in Porous-Ti-alloy implants with pore sizes among 500, 640, and 800 pm; however, less bone ingrowth was observed with the 1000 pm pore size. These results indicated Porous-Ti-alloy implants with pore size under 800 pm provided biologically active and mechanically stable surface for implant fixation to bone, and had potential advantages for weight beating orthopedic implants such as acetabular cups. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据