Quantitative ultrasound assessment of the influence of roughness and healing time on osseointegration phenomena

Abstract The evolution of bone tissue quantity and quality in contact with the surface of orthopedic and dental implants is a strong determinant of the surgical outcome but remains difficult to be assessed quantitatively. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of a quantitative ult...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M. Fraulob, R. Vayron, S. Le Cann, B. Lecuelle, Y. Hériveaux, H. Albini Lomami, C. H. Flouzat Lachaniette, G. Haïat
Format: article
Language:EN
Published: Nature Portfolio 2020
Subjects:
R
Q
Online Access:https://doaj.org/article/462f3dfc82d2444aac8ed00943d3dedd
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract The evolution of bone tissue quantity and quality in contact with the surface of orthopedic and dental implants is a strong determinant of the surgical outcome but remains difficult to be assessed quantitatively. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of a quantitative ultrasound (QUS) method to measure bone-implant interface (BII) properties. A dedicated animal model considering coin-shaped titanium implants with two levels of surface roughness (smooth, S a  = 0.49 µm and rough, S a  = 3.5 µm) allowed to work with a reproducible geometry and a planar interface. The implants were inserted in rabbit femurs and tibiae for 7 or 13 weeks. The ultrasonic response of the BII was measured ex vivo, leading to the determination of the 2-D spatial variations of bone in contact with the implant surface. Histological analysis was carried out to determine the bone-implant contact (BIC) ratio. The amplitude of the echo was significantly higher after 7 weeks of healing time compared to 13 weeks, for both smooth (p < 0.01) and rough (p < 0.05) implants. A negative correlation (R = − 0.63) was obtained between the ultrasonic response and the BIC. This QUS technique is more sensitive to changes of BII morphology compared to histological analyses.