Calcium Phosphate-Coated Titanium Implants in the Mandible: Limitations of the in vivo Minipig Model.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare implant osseointegration with calcium phosphate (CaP) surfaces and rough subtractive-treated sandblasted/acid etched surfaces (SA) in an in vivo minipig mandible model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 36 cylindrical press-fit implants with two different surfaces (CaP, n = 18; SA, n = 18) were inserted bilaterally into the mandible of 9 adult female minipigs. After 2, 4, and 8 weeks, we analyzed the cortical bone-to-implant contact (cBIC; %) and area coverage of bone-to-implant contact within representative bone chambers (aBIC; %). RESULTS: After 2 weeks, CaP implants showed no significant increase in cBIC and aBIC compared to SA (cBIC: mean 38 ± 5 vs. 16 ± 11%; aBIC: mean 21 ± 1 vs. 6 ± 9%). Two CaP implants failed to achieve osseointegration. After 4 weeks, no statistical difference between CaP and SA was seen for cBIC (mean 54 ± 15 vs. 43 ± 16%) and aBIC (mean 43 ± 28 vs. 32 ± 6). However, we excluded two implants in each group due to failure of osseointegration. After 8 weeks, we observed no significant intergroup differences (cBIC: 18 ± 9 vs. 18 ± 20%; aBIC: 13 ± 8 vs. 16 ± 9%). Again, three CaP implants and two SA implants had to be excluded due to failure of osseointegration. CONCLUSION: Due to multiple implant losses, we cannot recommend the oral mandibular minipig in vivo model for future endosseous implant research. Considering the higher rate of osseointegration failure, CaP coatings may provide an alternative to common subtractive implant surface modifications in the early phase post-insertion.

A biphasic calcium phosphate coating for potential drug delivery affects early osseointegration of titanium implants.

BACKGROUND: Calcium phosphate (CaP) surface coatings may accelerate osseointegration and serve as a drug delivery system for mineral-binding biomolecules. In a pilot study, the impact of a commercially available, thin CaP coating on early osseous bone remodeling was compared with a modern, subtractive-treated rough surface (SLA-like) in an animal trial. METHODS: In 16 rabbits, 32 endosseous implants (CaP; n = 16, SLA-like; n = 16) were bilaterally inserted in the proximal tibia after randomization. After 2 and 4 weeks, bone-implant contact (BIC;%) in the cortical (cBIC) and the trabecular bone (sBIC) as well as volume of bone within the screw thread with the highest amount of new-formed bone (area;%) were analyzed. RESULTS: After 2 weeks, cBIC was significantly higher for CaP when compared with SLA-like (58 ± 7% versus 40.4 ± 18%; P = 0.021). sBIC for CaP was 14.7 ± 8% and for SLA-like 7.2 ± 7.8% (P = 0.081). For area, the mean volumes were 82.8 ± 10.8% for CaP and 73.6 ± 22% for SLA-like (P = 0.311). After 4 weeks, cBIC was 42.9 ± 13% for the CaP and 46.5 ± 29.1% for the SLA-like group (P = 0.775). An sBIC of 6.9 ± 9.3% was calculated for CaP and of 12.3 ± 4.8% for SLA-like (P = 0.202). The values for area were 62.3 ± 24.1% for CaP and 50.1 ± 25.9% for SLA-like (P = 0.379). CONCLUSIONS: The CaP coating has putative additional advantages in the early osseoconduction phases. It seems suitable for a feasible and clinical applicable bioactivation.