Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T08:49:12.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Vivo Evaluation of Pulsed Laser Deposited Hydroxyapatite Coating for Prosthesis-Bone Bonding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

C. M. Cotell ,
J. A. Conklin ,
R. C. Y. Auyeung ,
S. S. Wong ,
C. M. Klapperich  and
M. Spector
C. M. Cotell
Affiliation:
US Naval Research Laboratory, Wasington, DC
J. A. Conklin
Affiliation:
US Naval Research Laboratory, Wasington, DC
R. C. Y. Auyeung
Affiliation:
Sachs Freeman Associates, Landover, MD
S. S. Wong
Affiliation:
Present address; Applied Materials, Inc., Santa Clara, CA
C. M. Klapperich
Affiliation:
Brighanm and Womens's Hospital, Boston, MA
M. Spector
Affiliation:
Brighanm and Womens's Hospital, Boston, MA
Get access

Abstract

The bone-implant bond strength to hydroxyapatite-coated cylindrical Ti-6A1–4V implants was evaluated in torsional tests using a canine model. Experimental hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings were deposited using pulsed laser deposition (PLD) under conditions that yield highly crystalline, phase-pure coatings on Ti-6A1–4V. Commercially available plasma-sprayed (PS) HA coatings of lower crystallinity and purity served as positive controls (for bone bonding) and uncoated polished and grit-blasted Ti-6A1–4V samples as negative controls. The torsional shear strength of the PLD HA-coated specimens implanted in cancellous bone was substantially lower than that of the PS HA-coated implants, at both 2 and 6 weeks post-implantation. Within statistical limits, the shear strength of the PLD HA-coated samples was similar to that of the polished Ti-6A1–4V control implants and lower than the grit-blasted Ti-6A1–4V control implants. Examination of PLD HA-coated samples after mechanical testing revealed many areas from which the coating had detached. Previous results from laboratory solubility studies showed that (a) PLD films released less calcium and phosphate than the PS controls, (b) rates of dissolution were much lower and (c) the PLD coatings contained fewer decomposition products. Taken with these previous findings, the present results suggest that the surface morphology and/or grain size of implants may be more important for bone bonding than the phase purity of hydroxyapatite coatings. Furthermore, the local chemical environment resulting from the dissolution of the more soluble phases present in the PS HA coatings may enhance bone bonding.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 414: Symposium Z – Thin Films and Surfaces for Bioactivity and Biomedical Applications , 1995 , 171
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bauer, T.W., Geesink, R.C.T., Zimmerman, R., and McMahon, J.T., J. Bone Jt. Surg. 73–A, 1439 (1991).Google Scholar
2. Bloebaum, R.D., Beeks, D., Dorr, L.D., Savory, C.G., DuPont, J.A., and Hofmann, A.A., Clin. Orth. 298, 19 (1994).Google Scholar
3. Cotell, C.M., Chrisey, D.B., Grabowski, K.S., and Sprague, J.A., “Pulsed Laser Deposition of Hydroxylapatite Thin Films on Ti-6A1–4V Substrates,” J. Appl. Biomaterials, 3, 87 (1992).Google Scholar
4. Cotell, C.M., “Pulsed Laser Deposition and Processing of Biocompatible Hydroxylapatite Thin Films,” Applied Surface Science, 69, 140 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Tucker, B.E., Cotell, C.M., Auyeung, R.C.Y., Spector, M., and Nancollas, G.H., “Pre-Conditioning and Dual Constant Composition Dissolution Kinetics of Pulsed Laser Deposited Hydroxyapatite Thin Films on Silicon Substrates,” Biomaterials, in press.Google Scholar
6. Orr, T.E., Trilling, S.L., and Spector, M., Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, San Francisco, CA, March 18–22 1995, p. 373.Google Scholar
7. Klein, C.P.A.T., Wolke, J.G.C., de Blieck-Hogervorst, J.M.A., and deGroot, K., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 28, 961 (1994).Google Scholar
8. Ducheyne, P., Beight, J., Cuckler, J., Evans, B., and Radin, S., Biomaterials, 11, 531 (1990).Google Scholar
9. Klein, C.P.A.T., and deGroot, K., “Implant systems based on bioactive ceramics,” in Osseointegrated Implants, Vol. H: Implants in Oral and ENT Surgery, ed. by Heimke, G., Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 1990 pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
10. Paschalis, E.P., Zhao, Q., Tucker, B.E., et al., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., pending publication.Google Scholar
11. Anderson, R.C., Cook, S.D., Weinstein, A.M., and Haddad, R.J., Clin. Orthop. 182, 242 (1984).Google Scholar
12. Kiefer, H., Claes, L., Burri, C., Kluglmeier, K., “Biological fixation of various titanium and carbon implants in cancellous bone: biomechanical and histomorphological evaluation,” in Biological and Biomechanical Performance of Biomaterials, ed. by Christel, P., Meunier, C.A., Lee, A.J.C., Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1986 pp. 471–475.Google Scholar