We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 4     15. July 2010
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 4  (15.07.2010)

Page 669-680, PubMed:20657861

In Vivo Comparison of Bone Formation on Titanium Implant Surfaces Coated with Biomimetically Deposited Calcium Phosphate or Electrochemically Deposited Hydroxyapatite
Yang, Guo-li / He, Fu-ming / Song, En / Hu, Ji-an / Wang, Xiao-xiang / Zhao, Shi-fang
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare bone formation on titanium implant surfaces coated with biomimetically deposited calcium phosphate (BDCaP) or electrochemically deposited hydroxyapatite (EDHA).
Materials and Methods: The implants were separated into three groups: a control group, a BDCaP group, and an EDHA group. Surface analysis was performed by field-emission scanning electron microscopy, x-ray diffractometry, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Implants were inserted in a randomized arrangement into rabbit tibiae. After 2, 4, and 8 weeks, the tibiae were retrieved and prepared for histomorphometric evaluation.
Results: Field-emission scanning electron microscopy showed that the BDCaP crystals were flakelike and the EDHA crystals were rodlike with a hexagonal cross section. X-ray diffractometric patterns and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy spectra showed that the BDCaP coating consisted of HA and octacalcium phosphate, whereas the EDHA coating consisted of HA. Histologic observation showed that new bone on the EDHA-coated implant became mature after 4 weeks, while new bone on the control and BDCaP-coated implants was mature after 8 weeks. The EDHA implant showed significantly greater BIC and bone area compared to the control and BDCaP implants during 4 to 8 weeks. The BDCaP coating failed to show increased bone formation during the test period.
Conclusion: The present EDHA coating has good bone formation properties, while the BDCaP coating has weaker bone formation properties.

Keywords: biomimetic deposition, bone formation, dissolution, electrochemical deposition, hydroxy-apatite coating