- Email: [email protected]
Coated versus uncoated polyetheretherketone (peek) implants: Preliminary data of an animal model in sheep
1184
21st ICOMS 2013—Abstracts: Oral Papers
T2.OR014
T2.OR015
Coated versus uncoated polyetheretherketone (peek) implants: Preliminary data of an animal model in sheep
Guided bone regeneration in rat mandibular defects using resorbable poly(trimethylene carbonate) barrier membranes
S. Stübinger 1,∗ , E. Preve 2 , A. Drechsler 1 , G. Zappini 2 , B. von Rechenberg 1
A. Van Leeuwen 1,∗ , J. Huddleston Slater 1 , J. de Jong 2 , D. Grijpma 3,4 , R. Bos 1
1
1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands 2 Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands 3 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Netherlands 4 MIRA Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Technical Medicine, and Department of Biomaterials Science and Technology, University of Twente, Netherlands
2
University of Zurich, Switzerland Eurocoating SpA, Switzerland
Background and objectives: Beneath titanium and zirconia recently also polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been promoted as suitable implant material especially in orthopedics. Although highly biocompatible, these PEEK-based materials do not show the same osteoconductive properties as conventional implant surfaces like e.g. titanium. Therefore, it was the aim of this pilot study in sheep to analyze the osseointegrative properties of coated and uncoated PEEK implant surfaces after 2 and 12 weeks. Materials and methods: Three groups of materials were tested: uncoated carbon-fiber reinforced PEEK (CFR-PEEK) as reference, titanium-coated CFR-PEEK (Ti-coating), and titanium/hydroxyapatite double-coated CFR-PEEK (Ti/HA-coating). In n = 6 sheep 54 implants (length = 10 mm) were placed in the right and left part of the pelvis (n = 3 implants per surface group per animal). After 2 and 12 weeks n = 3 implants per group were examined histologically (bone-to-implant-contact, BIC) and n = 6 implants per group were tested by a pull-out test. Additionally, a histomorphometrical and fluorescent microscopic analysis was performed. Results: All implants could be placed without complications and with good primary stability. There was no mechanical attrition of the coating. Pull-out values at 12 weeks showed significant (p < 0.05) increased retention for Ti-coating (max. 1351 N) and Ti/HA-coating (max. 1535 N) in comparison to reference (max. 68 N). In case of Ti/HA-coating, the implant-to-bone-bonding after 12 weeks was stronger than the mechanical resistance of the bulk material. Thus in 5 out of 6 cases the CFR-PEEK material broke. In case of Ti-coating only one implant broke. In all groups a steady increase from 2 to 12 week could be detected. Preliminary microradiographic and histologic results confirmed an improved bone-to-implant contact for coated PEEK vs uncoated PEEK. Conclusions: In comparison to uncoated PEEK, surface coating with titanium or titanium/hydroxyapatite revealed highly favorable biomechanical and biological characteristics. Thus an application in oral reconstructive surgery could be considered. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.07.058
Background and objectives: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) has proven to be a predictable procedure for alveolar ridge augmentation prior to implant dentistry. In guided bone regeneration, a barrier membrane prevents in-growth of fibroblasts and provides a space for osteogenesis within the underlying blood clot and bone promoting materials. Currently, two sorts of barrier membranes are available: non-resorbable and resorbable membranes. The present study evaluates a new synthetic degradable barrier membrane based on poly(trimethylene carbonate) (PTMC) for use in guided bone regeneration. A collagen membrane (BioGide) and an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE, GoreTex) membrane served as reference materials. Methods: In 192 male Sprague-Dawley rats, a standardised 5.0 mm circular defect was created in the left mandibular angle. New bone formation was demonstrated by post-mortem microradiography, micro-CT imaging and histological analysis. Four groups (control, PTMC, collagen, e-PTFE) were evaluated at 3 time intervals (2, 4 and 12 weeks). In the membrane groups the defects were covered; in the control group the defects were left uncovered. Data were analysed using a multiple regression model. Results: In contrast to uncovered mandibular defects, substantial bone healing was observed in defects covered with a barrier membrane. In the latter case, the formation of bone was progressive over 12 weeks. No statistically significant differences between the amount of new bone formed under the PTMC membranes and the amount of bone formed under the collagen and e-PTFE membranes were observed. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that PTMC membranes are well suited for use in guided bone regeneration (GBR). Key words Poly(trimethylene carbonate), guided bone regeneration, synthetic resorbable membrane, micro-CT, microradiography http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.07.059
21st ICOMS 2013—Abstracts: Oral Papers
T2.OR014
T2.OR015
Coated versus uncoated polyetheretherketone (peek) implants: Preliminary data of an animal model in sheep
Guided bone regeneration in rat mandibular defects using resorbable poly(trimethylene carbonate) barrier membranes
S. Stübinger 1,∗ , E. Preve 2 , A. Drechsler 1 , G. Zappini 2 , B. von Rechenberg 1
A. Van Leeuwen 1,∗ , J. Huddleston Slater 1 , J. de Jong 2 , D. Grijpma 3,4 , R. Bos 1
1
1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands 2 Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands 3 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Netherlands 4 MIRA Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Technical Medicine, and Department of Biomaterials Science and Technology, University of Twente, Netherlands
2
University of Zurich, Switzerland Eurocoating SpA, Switzerland
Background and objectives: Beneath titanium and zirconia recently also polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been promoted as suitable implant material especially in orthopedics. Although highly biocompatible, these PEEK-based materials do not show the same osteoconductive properties as conventional implant surfaces like e.g. titanium. Therefore, it was the aim of this pilot study in sheep to analyze the osseointegrative properties of coated and uncoated PEEK implant surfaces after 2 and 12 weeks. Materials and methods: Three groups of materials were tested: uncoated carbon-fiber reinforced PEEK (CFR-PEEK) as reference, titanium-coated CFR-PEEK (Ti-coating), and titanium/hydroxyapatite double-coated CFR-PEEK (Ti/HA-coating). In n = 6 sheep 54 implants (length = 10 mm) were placed in the right and left part of the pelvis (n = 3 implants per surface group per animal). After 2 and 12 weeks n = 3 implants per group were examined histologically (bone-to-implant-contact, BIC) and n = 6 implants per group were tested by a pull-out test. Additionally, a histomorphometrical and fluorescent microscopic analysis was performed. Results: All implants could be placed without complications and with good primary stability. There was no mechanical attrition of the coating. Pull-out values at 12 weeks showed significant (p < 0.05) increased retention for Ti-coating (max. 1351 N) and Ti/HA-coating (max. 1535 N) in comparison to reference (max. 68 N). In case of Ti/HA-coating, the implant-to-bone-bonding after 12 weeks was stronger than the mechanical resistance of the bulk material. Thus in 5 out of 6 cases the CFR-PEEK material broke. In case of Ti-coating only one implant broke. In all groups a steady increase from 2 to 12 week could be detected. Preliminary microradiographic and histologic results confirmed an improved bone-to-implant contact for coated PEEK vs uncoated PEEK. Conclusions: In comparison to uncoated PEEK, surface coating with titanium or titanium/hydroxyapatite revealed highly favorable biomechanical and biological characteristics. Thus an application in oral reconstructive surgery could be considered. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.07.058
Background and objectives: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) has proven to be a predictable procedure for alveolar ridge augmentation prior to implant dentistry. In guided bone regeneration, a barrier membrane prevents in-growth of fibroblasts and provides a space for osteogenesis within the underlying blood clot and bone promoting materials. Currently, two sorts of barrier membranes are available: non-resorbable and resorbable membranes. The present study evaluates a new synthetic degradable barrier membrane based on poly(trimethylene carbonate) (PTMC) for use in guided bone regeneration. A collagen membrane (BioGide) and an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE, GoreTex) membrane served as reference materials. Methods: In 192 male Sprague-Dawley rats, a standardised 5.0 mm circular defect was created in the left mandibular angle. New bone formation was demonstrated by post-mortem microradiography, micro-CT imaging and histological analysis. Four groups (control, PTMC, collagen, e-PTFE) were evaluated at 3 time intervals (2, 4 and 12 weeks). In the membrane groups the defects were covered; in the control group the defects were left uncovered. Data were analysed using a multiple regression model. Results: In contrast to uncovered mandibular defects, substantial bone healing was observed in defects covered with a barrier membrane. In the latter case, the formation of bone was progressive over 12 weeks. No statistically significant differences between the amount of new bone formed under the PTMC membranes and the amount of bone formed under the collagen and e-PTFE membranes were observed. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that PTMC membranes are well suited for use in guided bone regeneration (GBR). Key words Poly(trimethylene carbonate), guided bone regeneration, synthetic resorbable membrane, micro-CT, microradiography http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.07.059