Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Research article

Osseointegration and biocompatibility of different metal implants - a comparative experimental investigation in sheep

Authors: Michael Plecko, Christine Sievert, Daniel Andermatt, Robert Frigg, Peter Kronen, Karina Klein, Stefan Stübinger, Katja Nuss, Alexander Bürki, Stephen Ferguson, Ulrich Stoeckle, Brigitte von Rechenberg

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In the present study, 4 different metallic implant materials, either partly coated or polished, were tested for their osseointegration and biocompatibility in a pelvic implantation model in sheep.

Methods

Materials to be evaluated were: Cobalt-Chrome (CC), Cobalt-Chrome/Titanium coating (CCTC), Cobalt-Chrome/Zirconium/Titanium coating (CCZTC), Pure Titanium Standard (PTST), Steel, TAN Standard (TANST) and TAN new finish (TANNEW). Surgery was performed on 7 sheep, with 18 implants per sheep, for a total of 63 implants. After 8 weeks, the specimens were harvested and evaluated macroscopically, radiologically, biomechanically (removal torque), histomorphometrically and histologically.

Results

Cobalt-Chrome screws showed significantly (p = 0.031) lower removal torque values than pure titanium screws and also a tendency towards lower values compared to the other materials, except for steel. Steel screws showed no significant differences, in comparison to cobalt-chrome and TANST, however also a trend towards lower torque values than the remaining materials. The results of the fluorescence sections agreed with those of the biomechanical test. Histomorphometrically, there were no significant differences of bone area between the groups. The BIC (bone-to-implant-contact), used for the assessment of the osseointegration, was significantly lower for cobalt-chrome, compared to steel (p = 0.001). Steel again showed a lower ratio (p = 0.0001) compared to the other materials.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that cobalt-chrome and steel show less osseointegration than the other metals and metal-alloys. However, osseointegration of cobalt-chrome was improved by zirconium and/or titanium based coatings (CCTC, TANST, TAN, TANNEW) being similar as pure titanium in their osseointegrative behavior.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Albrektsson T, Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Karring Th, Lang NP: Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. 2003, Blackwell Munksgaard, a Blackwell Publishing Company; Oxford UK, 809-820. 4
2.
LeGeros RZ, Craig RG: Strategies to affect bone remodeling: osteointegration. J Bone Miner Res. 1993, 8 (Suppl 2): S583-S596.PubMed
3.
Puleo DA, Nanci A: Understanding and controlling the bone-implant interface. Biomaterials. 1999, 20: 2311-2321. 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00160-X.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Stanford CM: Surface modification of biomedical and dental implants and the processes of inflammation, wound healing and bone formation. Int J Mol Sci. 2010, 11: 354-369. 10.3390/ijms11010354.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Hadjidakis DJ, Androulakis II: Bone remodeling. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006, 1092: 385-396. 10.1196/annals.1365.035.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Mavrogenis AF, Dimitriou R, Parvizi J, Babis GC: Biology of implant osseointegration. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2009, 9: 61-71.PubMed
8.
Schenk RK, Buser D: Osseointegration: a reality. Periodontol. 1998, 17: 22-35. 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00120.x.CrossRef
9.
Marco F, Milena F, Gianluca G, Vittoria O: Peri-implant osteogenesis in health and osteoporosis. Micron. 2005, 36: 630-644. 10.1016/j.micron.2005.07.008.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Chappard D, Aguado E, Hure G, Grizon F, Basle MF: The early remodeling phases around titanium implants: a histomorphometric assessment of bone quality in a 3- and 6-month study in sheep. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999, 14: 189-196.PubMed
11.
Davies JE: Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ. 2003, 67: 932-949.PubMed
12.
Gotman I: Characteristics of metals used in implants. J Endourol. 1997, 11: 383-389. 10.1089/end.1997.11.383.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Gasser B, Eschbach L, Biehl V: Metallische Implantatwerkstoffe: Reintitan und Titanlegierungen. OP-Journal RMS. 2000, 16: 7-11.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Ha S-W, E W: Medizintechnik- Life Science Engineering. 2008, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg
18.
19.
Marti A, Gasser B: Metallische Implantatwerkstoffe...über Kobaltbasislegierungen, die Festigkeit und Verschleissproblematik. OP-Journal RMS. 2000, 16: 12-15.
20.
Bensmann G: An attempt to asses material suitability taking the example of hip endoprostheses. Materialwiss Werkst. 1999, 30: 733-745. 10.1002/(SICI)1521-4052(199912)30:12<733::AID-MAWE733>3.0.CO;2-J.CrossRef
21.
Heuberger R: Roughness Measurements on the Groove of Threads of Locking Screws Stardrive® after different Treatments. RMS Report. 2009, A09_0432: 1-6.
22.
Keegan GM, Learmonth ID, Case CP: A systematic comparison of the actual, potential, and theoretical health effects of cobalt and chromium exposures from industry and surgical implants. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008, 38: 645-674. 10.1080/10408440701845534.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Breme J, Eisenbarth E, Biehl V: Titan und Titanlegierungen--Titanlegierung in der Medizintechnik. 2002, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH
24.
Christensen FB, Dalstra M, Sejling F, Overgaard S, Bunger C: Titanium-alloy enhances bone-pedicle screw fixation: mechanical and histomorphometrical results of titaniumalloy versus stainless steel. Eur Spine J. 2000, 9: 97-103. 10.1007/s005860050218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Disegi JA: Titanium--6% Aluminium--7% Niobium Implant Material. AO ASIF. 1993, 1-20. First Edition
26.
Thompson GJ, Puleo DA: Ti-6Al-4V ion solution inhibition of osteogenic cell phenotype as a function of differentiation timecourse in vitro. Biomaterials. 1996, 17: 1949-1954. 10.1016/0142-9612(96)00009-9.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Daley B, Doherty AT, Fairman B, Case CP: Wear debris from hip or knee replacements causes chromosomal damage in human cells in tissue culture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004, 86: 598-606.PubMed
28.
Shapira L, Klinger A, Tadir A, Wilensky A, Halabi A: Effect of a niobium-containing titanium alloy on osteoblast behavior in culture. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009, 20: 578-582.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Thomsen P, Larsson C, Ericson LE, Sennerby L, Lausmaa J, Kasemo B: Structure of the interface between rabbit cortical bone and implants of gold, zirconium and titanium. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1997, 8: 653-665. 10.1023/A:1018579605426.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Chevalier J: What future for zirconia as a biomaterial?. Biomaterials. 2006, 27: 535-543. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.034.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Rocchietta I, Fontana F, Addis A, Schupbach P, Simion M: Surface-modified zirconia implants: tissue response in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009, 20: 844-850. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01727.x.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Ferguson SJ, Langhoff JD, Voelter K, von Rechenberg B, Scharnweber D, Bierbaum S, Schnabelrauch M, Kautz AR, Frauchiger VM, Mueller TL: Biomechanical comparison of different surface modifications for dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008, 23: 1037-1046.PubMed
33.
Langhoff JD, Voelter K, Scharnweber D, Schnabelrauch M, Schlottig F, Hefti T, Kalchofner K, Nuss K, von Rechenberg B: Comparison of chemically and pharmaceutically modified titanium and zirconia implant surfaces in dentistry: a study in sheep. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008, 37: 1125-1132. 10.1016/j.ijom.2008.09.008.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Dobele S, Horn C, Eichhorn S, Buchholtz A, Lenich A, Burgkart R, Nussler AK, Lucke M, Andermatt D, Koch R, Stockle U: The dynamic locking screw (DLS) can increase interfragmentary motion on the near cortex of locked plating constructs by reducing the axial stiffness. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010, 395: 421-428. 10.1007/s00423-010-0636-z.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Rechenberg Bv, Leutenegger CM, Zlinszky K, McIlwraith CW, Akens MK, Auer JA: Upregulation of mRNA of interleukin-1 and 6 in subchondral cystic lesions of four horses. Equine Vet J. 2000, 33: 143-149.CrossRef
36.
Nunamaker DM: Experimental models of fracture repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998, 355 (Suppl): S56-65.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Muschler GF, Raut VP, Patterson TE, Wenke JC, Hollinger JO: The design and use of animal models for translational research in bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2010, 16: 123-145.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Martini L, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Giardino R: Sheep model in orthopedic research: a literature review. Comp Med. 2001, 51: 292-299.PubMed
39.
Pearce AI, Richards RG, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce SG: Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cell Mater. 2007, 13: 1-10.PubMed
40.
Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, Naujoks C, Wiesmann HP, Kiattavorncharoen S, Lauer HC, Meyer U, Kubler NR, Handschel J: Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: an in vivo study. Head Face Med. 2008, 4: 30-10.1186/1746-160X-4-30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Pearce AI, Pearce SG, Schwieger K, Milz S, Schneider E, Archer CW, Richards RG: Effect of surface topography on removal of cortical bone screws in a novel sheep model. J Orthop Res. 2008, 26: 1377-1383. 10.1002/jor.20665.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Jakobsen SS, Danscher G, Stoltenberg M, Larsen A, Bruun JM, Mygind T, Kemp K, Soballe K: Cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy causes metal accumulation and metallothionein up-regulation in rat liver and kidney. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2007, 101: 441-446. 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2007.00137.x.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Puleo DA, Holleran LA, Doremus RH, Bizios R: Osteoblast responses to orthopedic implant materials in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res. 1991, 25: 711-723. 10.1002/jbm.820250603.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Johansson CB, Sennerby L, Albrektsson T: A removal torque and histomorphometric study of bone tissue reactions to commercially pure titanium and Vitallium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991, 6: 437-441.PubMed
45.
Hayes JS, Seidenglanz U, Pearce AI, Pearce SG, Archer CW, Richards RG: Surface polishing positively influences ease of plate and screw removal. Eur Cell Mater. 2010, 19: 117-126.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Osseointegration and biocompatibility of different metal implants - a comparative experimental investigation in sheep
Authors
Michael Plecko
Christine Sievert
Daniel Andermatt
Robert Frigg
Peter Kronen
Karina Klein
Stefan Stübinger
Katja Nuss
Alexander Bürki
Stephen Ferguson
Ulrich Stoeckle
Brigitte von Rechenberg
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-13-32

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2012 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Study protocol: Transition from localized low back pain to chronic widespread pain in general practice: Identification of risk factors, preventive factors and key elements for treatment – A cohort study

Research article

Replacement of endoprosthetic implants within a two years follow-up period: a statutory health insurance routine data analysis

Technical advance

New method for detection of complex 3D fracture motion - Verification of an optical motion analysis system for biomechanical studies

Research article

Surgeons agree more on treatment recommendations than on classification of proximal humeral fractures

Study protocol

Hemiarthroplasty versus angle-stable locking compression plate osteosynthesis in the treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly: design of a randomized controlled trial

Research article

Kinematic predictors of single-leg squat performance: a comparison of experienced physiotherapists and student physiotherapists