website: 86th General Session & Exhibition of the IADR

ABSTRACT: 0052  

Influence of Young's Modulus of Loaded Implants on Bone Remodelling

N. STOPPIE1, H. VAN OOSTERWYCK1, J.A. JANSEN2, J.G.C. WOLKE2, M. WEVERS1, and I. NAERT3, 1Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 2Radboud University, Nijmegen Medical Center, Netherlands, 3Katholieke Universiteit Leuven / BIOMAT Research Cluster, Belgium

Objectives: This study was to examine the influence of the Young's modulus of the implant material on peri-implant bone remodelling.

Materials and Methods: 16 Saanen goats, each receiving 1 Ti implant (Young's mod. 110 GPa) and 1 high-density polyethylene (PE) implant (Young's mod. 1 GPa) in one femoral condyle were selected. A 100 nm Ti coating was applied on both types of implants. The implants protruded in the knee joint space and were directly weight bearing. The first group of 8 goats was sacrificed after 6 and the second group after 6 months of loading. Histological sectioning and 3D trabecular bone parameters were calculated on the micro-CT images for the neck, middle and apex areas. A linear mixed-model, together with multiple testing corrections by Tukey procedure for pairwise differences were used and α was set at 5%.

Results: For the 3D-bone parameters, the difference between the Ti and PE implants was not significantly different (p>0.05) between the zones (neck, middle and apex) for both groups of goats. The implants could therefore be considered in their entirety. The PE implants showed significantly more bone-to-implant contact (p=0.04) after 6 months of loading compared to the Ti implants. After 6 weeks of loading, the PE implant presented lower connectivity and smaller marrow spaces in the 0-500 µm ROI. In the 500-1500 µm ROI more bone volume was present for the PE implant. After 6 months, the PE implants showed more bone volume and thicker trabeculae than the Ti implants for the entire length of the implant. This effect was already present in the 0-500 µm ROI.

Conclusion: The experimental results suggest that implant stiffness affects the peri-implant tissue response, which may be related to differences in peri-implant strains.

Support by Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders N° 101/8 & 1.5.118.02.

Back to Top