Quantitative and qualitative investigations of surface enlarged titanium and titanium alloy implants

Screw shaped implants of commercially pure (c.p.) titanium and titanium-6aluminum-4vanadium (Ti6A14V) were blasted with particles of TiO2 of mean sizes of 25 microns (Group I) and 75 microns (Group II) and inserted in rabbit bone for 3 months. The surface roughness of the implants was examined and quantified with an optical scanning 3-dimensional instrument (TopScan 3D system), revealing the two alloy surfaces in each group had similar surface roughness. Biomechanical (removal torque) tests showed the c.p. titanium implants to be significantly more stable in the bone bed than those of Ti6A14V. In Group I, the c.p. titanium implants demonstrated a mean removal torque of 38 N cm while the Ti6A14V demonstrated a mean removal torque of 27 N cm (P = 0.004). Group II implants revealed a mean removal torque of 70 N cm for the c.p. ti and 50 N cm for the alloy samples (P = 0.003). The removal torque values were converted to shear forces/strengths by three calculation methods, based on (a) the entire length of the implant surface in the cortical region, (b) the thickness of the cortical bone measured in close vicinity to the thread peaks and (c) the bone-metal contact length measured on the non-unscrewed neighbouring implants. Group I: (a) the c.p. ti implants revealed a mean shear force of 4 vs a mean of 3 N/mm2 for the alloy samples. Shear strengths based on (b); were 8 for c.p. ti vs 6 N/mm2 for the alloy. The mean shear strength/force if calculated according to (c) revealed 23 for c.p. ti vs 18 N/mm2 for the alloy. Corresponding numbers for Group II; (a) c.p. ti 8 compared to 6 N/mm2 for the alloy, (b) c.p. ti demonstrated a mean value of 17 vs 11 N/mm2 for the alloy. According to method (c); c.p. ti had a mean shear strength of 26 vs 22 N/mm2 for the alloy samples. Histomorphometrical comparisons were performed on 10 microns thick undecalcified ground sections in the light microscope. In both Group I and Group II, the calculations of the mean bone-to-metal contact demonstrated more bone in contact to the c.p. titanium implants than to the Ti6A14V ones. Whereas comparisons of the bone volume inside the threads demonstrated slightly higher bone volumes around the alloy samples, no statistically significant difference was obtained between the two materials histomorphometrically.