Original Research Report
Histological and biomechanical analysis of porous additive manufactured implants made by direct metal laser sintering: A pilot study in sheep
Article first published online: 6 APR 2013
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., a Wiley Company
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials
Volume 101, Issue 7, pages 1154–1163, October 2013
How to Cite
How to cite this article: 2013. Histological and biomechanical analysis of porous additive manufactured implants made by direct metal laser sintering: A pilot study in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res Part B 2013:101B:1154–1163., , , , , , .
- Issue published online: 11 SEP 2013
- Article first published online: 6 APR 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 17 FEB 2013
- Manuscript Revised: 7 JAN 2013
- Manuscript Received: 21 SEP 2012
- dental implants;
- bone-to-implant contact;
- removal torque test;
- bone remodelling;
- laser sintering
Objectives: It was the aim of this study to analyze osseointegrative properties of porous additive manufactured titanium implants made by direct metal laser sintering in a sheep model after an implantation period of 2 and 8 weeks.
Material and Methods: Three different types of implants were placed in the pelvis of six sheep. In each sheep were placed three standard machined (M), three sandblasted and etched (SE), and three porous additive manufactured (AM) implants. Of these three implants (one per type) were examined histologically and six implants were tested biomechanically. Additionally a semiquantitative histomorphometrical and qualitative fluorescent microscopic analysis were performed.
Results: After 2 and 8 weeks bone-to-implant-contact (BIC) values of the AM surface (2w: 20.49% ± 5.18%; 8w: 43.91% ± 9.69%) revealed no statistical significant differences in comparison to the M (2w: 20.33% ± 11.50%; 8w: 25.33% ± 4.61%) and SE (2w: 43.67 ± 12.22%; 8w: 53.33 ± 8.96%) surfaces. AM surface showed the highest increase of the BIC between the two observation time points. Considering the same implantation period histomorphometry and fluorescent labelling disclosed no significant differences in the bone surrounding the three implants groups. In contrast Removal-torque-test showed a significant improve in fixation strength (P ≤ 0.001) for the AM (1891.82 ± 308, 44 Nmm) surface after eight weeks in comparison to the M (198.93±88,04 Nmm) and SE (730.08 ± 151,89 Nmm) surfaces.
Conclusion: All three surfaces (M, SE, and AM) showed sound osseointegration. AM implants may offer a possible treatment option in clinics for patients with compromised bone situations. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 101B: 1154–1163, 2013.