The effect of demineralized bone matrix gel on bone ingrowth and fixation of porous implants

The presence of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) gel did not enhance or accelerate attachment strength or bone ingrowth and resulted in a significant decrease in implant interface attachment strength at 3 weeks. Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating resulted in significant increases in interface shear strength...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2002-06, Vol.17 (4), p.402-408
Main Authors: Cook, Stephen D., Salkeld, Samantha L., Patron, Laura P., Barrack, Robert L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
animal model
Animals
bone ingrowth
Bone Matrix
demineralized bone matrix (DBM)
Dogs
Durapatite
Femur - surgery
hydroxyapatite (HA)
implant fixation
Osseointegration
porous implants
Prostheses and Implants
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The presence of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) gel did not enhance or accelerate attachment strength or bone ingrowth and resulted in a significant decrease in implant interface attachment strength at 3 weeks. Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating resulted in significant increases in interface shear strength and bone ingrowth compared with non–HA-coated porous implants at all time periods. The HA-coated implants achieved greater attachment strength and bone ingrowth at earlier time periods and maintained greater attachment strength at long-term periods. The results of this study indicate that in the presence of a good bone–implant interference fit, there is no beneficial effect in applying DBM gel to a porous-coated or HA-coated porous implant surface. The small amount that can be applied and the degree of osteoinductivity of DBM seem to preclude it from having a significant biologic effect. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
ISSN:0883-5403
1532-8406
DOI:10.1054/arth.2002.32169