Ti implants with nanostructured and HA-coated surfaces for improved osseointegration

Figures & data

Figure 1. Representative photographs showing implantation of Ti-based materials in rats. A. K-nails. B. Plates.

Figure 2. Representative SEM micrographs of Ti surfaces before surface modification (control) (A), after anodization (NanoTi) (B), and after HA deposition (NanoTiHA) (C).

Figure 3. Changes in formazan activity in cell cultures containing Ti plates show SAOS proliferation (both non-modified [control] and modified).

Figure 4. Changes in ALP activity in cell cultures containing Ti plates (both non-modified [control] and modified).

Table I. Mechanical test.

Results
Group	Torque to Failure*^+ (Nmm)	Pull-out Force (N)
Control	212.94 ± 23.26	2.4 ± 0.5
NanoTi	263.81 ± 39.17	4.4 ± 0.8
NanoTiHA	286.87 ± 44.21	3.3 ± 0.5

* Seven explants were tested in each group.

⁺ The mean ± SD torque to failure for intact bone was 417 ± 36.9 Nmm.

Figure 5. Micrographs of the non-decalcified sections show bone marrow depletion and replacement by fibrous and/or bone tissue adjacent to the implant. The implant exhibits osseointegration at several contact points. I: implant; B: bone; BM: bone marrow; H&E: hematoxylin-eosin; MT: Masson's trichrome.

Figure 6. Boxplot graph of the histomorphometric BIC percentages. Note that the NanoTiHA group is significantly better than the control (P < 0.05).