The relative contribution of bone microarchitecture and matrix composition to implant fixation strength in rats. Issue 4 (6th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Anderson, Kyle D.; Ko, Frank C.; Fullam, Spencer; Virdi, Amarjit S.; Wimmer, Markus A.; Sumner, Dale R.; Ross, Ryan D.
• Is Part Of: Journal of orthopaedic research. Volume 40:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 862
• Page End: 870
• Publication Date: 2021-06-06
• Subjects: bone composition -- bone‐implant contact -- implant fixation strength -- microCT -- Raman spectroscopy; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal system -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1002/jor.25107
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0736-0266

Abstract

Abstract: Bone microarchitectural parameters significantly contribute to implant fixation strength but the role of bone matrix composition is not well understood. To determine the relative contribution of microarchitecture and bone matrix composition to implant fixation strength, we placed titanium implants in 12‐week‐old intact Sprague–Dawley rats, ovariectomized‐Sprague–Dawley rats, and Zucker diabetic fatty rats. We assessed bone microarchitecture by microcomputed tomography, bone matrix composition by Raman spectroscopy, and implant fixation strength at 2, 6, and 10 weeks postimplantation. A stepwise linear regression model accounted for 83.3% of the variance in implant fixation strength with osteointegration volume/total volume (50.4%), peri‐implant trabecular bone volume fraction (14.2%), cortical thickness (9.3%), peri‐implant trabecular crystallinity (6.7%), and cortical area (2.8%) as the independent variables. Group comparisons indicated that osseointegration volume/total volume was significantly reduced in the ovariectomy group at Week 2 (~28%) and Week 10 (~21%) as well as in the diabetic group at Week 10 (~34%) as compared with the age matched Sprague–Dawley group. The crystallinity of the trabecular bone was significantly elevated in the ovariectomy group at Week 2 (~4%) but decreased in the diabetic group at Week 10 (~3%) with respect to the Sprague–Dawley group. Our study is the first to show that bone microarchitecture explains most of the variance in implant fixation strength, but that matrix composition is also a contributing factor. Therefore, treatment strategies aimed at improving bone‐implant contact and peri‐implant bone volume without compromising matrix quality should be prioritized.