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

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.