Method Article

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

DOI:

10.3791/51221

February 10th, 2014

In This Article

Summary

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

An improved method to mechanically test bone anchorage to candidate implant surfaces is presented. This method allows for alignment of the disruption force exactly perpendicular, or parallel, to the plane of the implant surface, and provides an accurate means to direct the disruption forces to an exact peri-implant region.

Abstract

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Recent advances in material science have led to a substantial increase in the topographical complexity of implant surfaces, both on a micro- and a nano-scale. As such, traditional methods of describing implant surfaces - namely numerical determinants of surface roughness - are inadequate for predicting in vivo performance. Biomechanical testing provides an accurate and comparative platform to analyze the performance of biomaterial surfaces. An improved mechanical testing method to test the anchorage of bone to candidate implant surfaces is presented. The method is applicable to both early and later stages of healing and can be employed for any range of chemically or mechanically modified surfaces - but not smooth surfaces. Custom rectangular implants are placed bilaterally in the distal femora of male Wistar rats and collected with the surrounding bone. Test specimens are prepared and potted using a novel breakaway mold and the disruption test is conducted using a mechanical testing machine. This method allows for alignment of the disruption force exactly perpendicular, or parallel, to the plane of the implant surface, and provides an accurate and reproducible means for isolating an exact peri-implant region for testing.

Introduction

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Assessing anchorage of bone to endosseous implant surfaces has been the focus of considerable attention, for which many mechanical testing methods have been described1,2. All such methods impose a force to disrupt the bone/implant model being employed, and can be broadly grouped into shear, generally presented as push-out or pull-out models3,4, reverse torque3,5, and tensile types6,7. Commonly in such tests, either bone8 or implant material (in the case of brittle glasses and ceramics9,10) is fractured and, assuming some form of anchorage has occurred, the bone/implant interface remains (at least partia....

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Protocol

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

1. Implant Design, Fabrication, and Surface Treatment

  1. Manufacture rectangular implants (dimensions 4 mm x 2.5 mm x 1.3 mm; length x width x height) from commercially pure titanium (cpTi). Drill a hole centrally down the long axis of the implant (diameter = 0.7 mm) to facilitate early implant stability within the surgical site and subsequent mechanical testing (Figure 1).
  2. Treat the upper and lower surfaces of the implant.
    1. To create two distinct surfaces, use a standard grit-blasting (GB) treatment to create a microtopographically complex surface. Further modify half of the implants by superimposing calcium phosphate (C....

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Results

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

All animals increased their ambulatory activity with time following their recovery from surgery. This is important because load has differential effects on topographies of different scale ranges, as we have recently reported12. A representative force/displacement curve for test specimens following mechanical testing is presented in Figure 9A, and the averaged data for each implant surface is presented in Figure 9B. The maximum force value achieved by each specimen was recorded.......

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Discussion

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The mechanical testing model presented here provides an improved method to assess the anchorage of bone to candidate implant surfaces, since it allows for accurate perpendicular, or parallel, alignment of the test sample with the axis of disruption force applied; and limits the fracture zone to within half a millimeter of the implant surface. The model is easily incorporated into studies comparing the effectiveness of any range of chemically, or mechanically, modified surfaces; but is not suitable for smooth surfaces as .......

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Disclosures

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The authors received funding and materials support from Biomet 3i (Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA). Biomet 3i had no part in the writing of this manuscript or the design of experiments described.

Acknowledgements

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The authors would like to thank Biomet 3i for their continued financial support, and particularly Randy Goodman for help in the design and fabrication of the custom parts. Spencer Bell is a recipient of an Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship, provided by the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We would also like to thank Dr. John Brunski for his very valuable feedback during manuscript preparation.

....

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
Dulbecco’s Phosphate Buffer solution (DPBS)Gibco Life Technologies, Burlington, ON, Canada14190-250
10% neutral buffered formalin solutionSigma-Aldrich Co. LLC., CanadaHT501128-4L
Custom-designed rectangular implants (commercially pure titanium; dimensions: 4mm x 2.5mm x 1.3mm with a 0.7mm hole drilled centrally down the long axis)Biomet 3i, FL, USAN/A
Custom-designed breakaway mouldBiomet 3i, FL, USAN/A
IsofluraneBaxter Internationl Inc.N/A
BuprenorphineBedford LaboratoriesN/A
10% betadineBruce Medical, MA, USFR-2200-90
ScalpelAlmedic, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada2586-M36-0100
Scalpel blade #15 (sterile)Magna, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada2586
Periosteal elevator #24GSpectrum Surgical, OH, USAEX7
ForcepsAlmedic, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada7747-A10-108
Tissue forcepsAlmedic, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada7722-A10-308
ScissorsAlmedic, Medstore, University of Toronto7603-A8-240
Absorbant Fabric General Purpose Drape (sterile)Vitality Medical1089
Gauze (non-sterile)VWR89133-260
Needles 25G X 5/8" (disposable)BD, Canada305122
Syringes (sterile)VWR, CanadaCABD309653
Needle DriverAlmedic, Medstore, University of Toronto, CanadaA17-132
Dynarex Surgical gloves (sterile)Amazon.com2475
Surgical masksFisherbrand, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada296360759
0.9% sterile salineHouse brand, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada1011-L8001
Hair clippersRemington, USN/A
4-0 PolysorbSynetureSL5627G
9mm Wound ClipsBecton Dickinson, MD, USA427631
ImplantMED DU 900 and WS-75 dental hand piece W&H Dentalwerk, AustriaDU1000US
1.3 mm twist drillBrasseler, GA, USA203.21.013
1.3 mm dental burr Biomet 3i, FL, USAcustom
1.2 mm cylindrical side-cutting burrBiomet 3i, FL, USAcustom
Cylindrical diamond burrBrasseler, GA, USAH1.21.014
High speed dental drilling systemHandpiece: KaVo Dental Corporation, IL, USAN/A
Handpiece Control: DCI International, OR, USA
99.5% Ultra Pure sucroseBioShop Canada Inc., Burlington, ON, Canada57-50-1
Flowable dental compositeFiltek Supreme Ultra Flowable Restorative, 3M ESPE, St Paul, Minnesota, USA6033XW
Sapphire Plasma Arc high intensity curing lightDen-Mat Holdings, Santa Maria, CA, USAN/A
Instron 4301 with 1000 N load cellInstron, Norwood, MA, USAN/A
Leica Wild M3Z Stereozoom dissecting microscopeLeica, Heerbrugg, SwitzerlandN/A
QImaging Micropublisher 5.0 RTV digital camera coupled with QCapture 2.90.1 acquisition softwareQImaging, Surrey, BC, CanadaN/A
Electronic digital caliper Fred V. Fowler Company, Inc., Newton, MA, USAN/A
Mechanical testing instrumentInstron, Norwood, MA, USAN/A

References

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
  1. Brunski, J. B. In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone-dental implant interface. Adv. Dental Res. 13, 99-119 (1999).
  2. Brunski, J. B., Glantz, P. -O., Helms, J. A., Nanci, A. Transfer of mechanical load across the interface. In: The Osseoin....

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Tags

Bone implant AnchorageMechanical Testing MethodImplant Surface TopographyPeri implant Bone IsolationBreakaway Mold TechniqueDisruption Force MeasurementCustom Titanium ImplantsWistar Rat ModelFlowable Dental CompositeSEM Imaging Analysis

Related Articles