Improved bone anchorage of hydroxyapatite coated implants compared with tricalcium-phosphate coated implants in trabecular bone in dogs

Tricalcium phosphate (TCP) and hydroxyapatite (HA) ceramic coatings are bioactive coatings that have been shown to stimulate bone apposition onto ceramic-coated implants. TCP and HA ceramics have well-documented differences in physical properties, but both types of ceramics are used for stimulation of bone ongrowth to cementless endo-prosthetic components clinically. However, little is known about the difference in osteoconductive properties between these coatings when inserted into trabecular bone in a controlled experimental situation. Unloaded cylindrical gritblasted titanium (Ti–6Al–4V) implants (6×10 mm) coated with either hydroxyapatite (HA) or tricalcium phosphate (TCP) ceramic were inserted into the proximal humerus of 20 skeletally mature dogs. The implants were initially surrounded by a 2 mm gap. Each animal received one HA-coated implant and one TCP-coated implant. All dogs were sacrificed 6 weeks after surgery. Results were evaluated by histomorphometry and mechanical push-out test. Push-out tests demonstrated that HA-coated implants were 10-fold stronger fixated in comparison to TCP-coated implant. Bone ongrowth was significantly higher for HA-coated implants compared to TCP-coated implants. Bone volume in the gap showed a tendency to less bone volume around HA-coated implants compared to TCP-coated implants but this difference was insignificant. As expected almost all of the TCP coating were resorbed after 6 weeks and almost none of the HA coating. HA-coated implants with a grit-blasted surface provide a favorable early mechanical implant anchorage most likely due to superior ceramic stability compared to TCP-coated implants.