Comparison of bone‐implant interface shear strength of hydroxyapatite‐coated and alumina‐coated metal implants

T. Inadome, K. Hayashi, Yasuharu Nakashima, H. Tsumura, Y. Sugioka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

53 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We performed a transcortical push‐out test to determine the effect of surface roughness of hydroxyapatite (HA)‐coated implants on bone‐implant shear strength in a canine model. Hydroxyapatite‐ and alumina‐coated SUS316L with the same surface roughness (roughness average: Ra = 5 μm) and HA‐coated Ti‐6Al‐4V (Ra = 8.4 μm), sintered HA (Ra = 0.9 μm), and dense alumina (Ra = 1.3 μm) were inserted into the dog's femur. The interface shear strength of the dense alumina was significantly lower than that of other implants at both 4 and 12 weeks after implantation. At 4 weeks after implantation, the interface shear strength of the alumina‐coated SUS316L was significantly lower than that of other implants (P < .05) except the dense alumina, but at 12 weeks, there was no significant difference between the implant types except the dense alumina. This indicates that the surface roughness of the HA coating affects the enhancement of the bone‐implant interface shear strength at the early period after implantation, and that a surface roughness of several micrometers does not influence the bond strength between bone and HA. A scanning electron microscopic study indicated that in almost all cases at 12 weeks, the failure site after push‐out testing was the coating‐substrate interface, not the coating‐bone interface. Therefore, protection of the coating‐substrate interface from direct shear loading is needed. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19-24
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Biomedical Materials Research
Volume29
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 1995

Fingerprint

Durapatite
Hydroxyapatite
Shear strength
Aluminum Oxide
Surface roughness
Alumina
Bone
Metal implants
Scanning
Coatings
Electrons
Testing
SUS 316L

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Comparison of bone‐implant interface shear strength of hydroxyapatite‐coated and alumina‐coated metal implants. / Inadome, T.; Hayashi, K.; Nakashima, Yasuharu; Tsumura, H.; Sugioka, Y.

In: Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, 01.01.1995, p. 19-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0c1f7688149640faaf0440f4b10d0ae6,
title = "Comparison of bone‐implant interface shear strength of hydroxyapatite‐coated and alumina‐coated metal implants",
abstract = "We performed a transcortical push‐out test to determine the effect of surface roughness of hydroxyapatite (HA)‐coated implants on bone‐implant shear strength in a canine model. Hydroxyapatite‐ and alumina‐coated SUS316L with the same surface roughness (roughness average: Ra = 5 μm) and HA‐coated Ti‐6Al‐4V (Ra = 8.4 μm), sintered HA (Ra = 0.9 μm), and dense alumina (Ra = 1.3 μm) were inserted into the dog's femur. The interface shear strength of the dense alumina was significantly lower than that of other implants at both 4 and 12 weeks after implantation. At 4 weeks after implantation, the interface shear strength of the alumina‐coated SUS316L was significantly lower than that of other implants (P < .05) except the dense alumina, but at 12 weeks, there was no significant difference between the implant types except the dense alumina. This indicates that the surface roughness of the HA coating affects the enhancement of the bone‐implant interface shear strength at the early period after implantation, and that a surface roughness of several micrometers does not influence the bond strength between bone and HA. A scanning electron microscopic study indicated that in almost all cases at 12 weeks, the failure site after push‐out testing was the coating‐substrate interface, not the coating‐bone interface. Therefore, protection of the coating‐substrate interface from direct shear loading is needed. {\circledC} 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.",
author = "T. Inadome and K. Hayashi and Yasuharu Nakashima and H. Tsumura and Y. Sugioka",
year = "1995",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jbm.820290104",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "19--24",
journal = "Journal of Biomedical Materials Research",
issn = "1552-4973",
publisher = "Heterocorporation",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of bone‐implant interface shear strength of hydroxyapatite‐coated and alumina‐coated metal implants

AU - Inadome, T.

AU - Hayashi, K.

AU - Nakashima, Yasuharu

AU - Tsumura, H.

AU - Sugioka, Y.

PY - 1995/1/1

Y1 - 1995/1/1

N2 - We performed a transcortical push‐out test to determine the effect of surface roughness of hydroxyapatite (HA)‐coated implants on bone‐implant shear strength in a canine model. Hydroxyapatite‐ and alumina‐coated SUS316L with the same surface roughness (roughness average: Ra = 5 μm) and HA‐coated Ti‐6Al‐4V (Ra = 8.4 μm), sintered HA (Ra = 0.9 μm), and dense alumina (Ra = 1.3 μm) were inserted into the dog's femur. The interface shear strength of the dense alumina was significantly lower than that of other implants at both 4 and 12 weeks after implantation. At 4 weeks after implantation, the interface shear strength of the alumina‐coated SUS316L was significantly lower than that of other implants (P < .05) except the dense alumina, but at 12 weeks, there was no significant difference between the implant types except the dense alumina. This indicates that the surface roughness of the HA coating affects the enhancement of the bone‐implant interface shear strength at the early period after implantation, and that a surface roughness of several micrometers does not influence the bond strength between bone and HA. A scanning electron microscopic study indicated that in almost all cases at 12 weeks, the failure site after push‐out testing was the coating‐substrate interface, not the coating‐bone interface. Therefore, protection of the coating‐substrate interface from direct shear loading is needed. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

AB - We performed a transcortical push‐out test to determine the effect of surface roughness of hydroxyapatite (HA)‐coated implants on bone‐implant shear strength in a canine model. Hydroxyapatite‐ and alumina‐coated SUS316L with the same surface roughness (roughness average: Ra = 5 μm) and HA‐coated Ti‐6Al‐4V (Ra = 8.4 μm), sintered HA (Ra = 0.9 μm), and dense alumina (Ra = 1.3 μm) were inserted into the dog's femur. The interface shear strength of the dense alumina was significantly lower than that of other implants at both 4 and 12 weeks after implantation. At 4 weeks after implantation, the interface shear strength of the alumina‐coated SUS316L was significantly lower than that of other implants (P < .05) except the dense alumina, but at 12 weeks, there was no significant difference between the implant types except the dense alumina. This indicates that the surface roughness of the HA coating affects the enhancement of the bone‐implant interface shear strength at the early period after implantation, and that a surface roughness of several micrometers does not influence the bond strength between bone and HA. A scanning electron microscopic study indicated that in almost all cases at 12 weeks, the failure site after push‐out testing was the coating‐substrate interface, not the coating‐bone interface. Therefore, protection of the coating‐substrate interface from direct shear loading is needed. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028918271&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028918271&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jbm.820290104

DO - 10.1002/jbm.820290104

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 19

EP - 24

JO - Journal of Biomedical Materials Research

JF - Journal of Biomedical Materials Research

SN - 1552-4973

IS - 1

ER -