This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
A canine study was performed to make a histological and biomechanical evaluation of the interface between bone and two different bioceramic implants. A newly developed glass-ceramic formed by P2O5, CaO, SiO2, and Al2O3, giving a crystal phase composed of CaP2O6-AlPO4-SiP2O7, was compared to hydroxyapatite (HA) coated Ti-6Al-4V implants. A total of 24 implants were inserted into the femoral condyle of 15 adult female golden retriever dogs weighing 20-25 kg. There was a 12 week follow-up. Implants were examined by mechanical testing, histology, histomorphometry, microradiograpic methods, and EDAX analysis. The ultimate shear strength for the HA-coated implants was significantly higher than in the glass-ceramic group. When these values were related to the histomorphometric measurements, the difference could be explained by the tissue-to-implant contact. The glass-ceramic showed direct contact only with nonmineralized, osteoid bone. The HA-coated implants, however, were integrated into the bone. The study indicated that porous glass-ceramic containing AlPO4 causes local osteomalacia and might not be suitable for clinical purposes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nimb et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: