ArticlePloS one2020
The effect of strontium and silicon substituted hydroxyapatite electrochemical coatings on bone ingrowth and osseointegration of selective laser sintered porous metal implants.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds for long bone repair in animal models: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Porous Structures, Surface Modifications, and Smart Technologies for Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effect of Ti6Al4V Alloy Surface and Porosity on Bone Osseointegration: In Vivo Pilot Study in Rabbits.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Physical and drug- releasing properties of a cement containing simvastatin (SimCeram).BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Harnessing strontium in regenerative dentistry: progress and perspectives.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Therapeutic functions of medical implants from various material categories with integrated biomacromolecular systems.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite-Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?-A Comprehensive Comparative Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Improving dental epithelial junction on dental implants with bioengineered peptides.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Surface Modification of Biomedical Ti and Ti Alloys: A Review on Current Advances.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Strontium Functionalization of Biomaterials for Bone Tissue Engineering Purposes: A Biological Point of View.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Additive manufactured, porous bone implants have the potential to improve osseointegration and reduce failure rates of orthopaedic devices. Substantially porous implants are increasingly used in a number of orthopaedic applications. HA plasma spraying-a line of sight process-cannot coat the inner surfaces of substantially porous structures, whereas electrochemical deposition of calcium phosphate can fully coat the inner surfaces of porous implants for improved bioactivity, but the osseous response of different types of hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings with ionic substitutions has not been evaluated for implants in the same in vivo model. In this study, laser sintered Ti6Al4V implants with pore sizes of Ø 700 μm and Ø 1500 μm were electrochemically coated with HA, silicon-substituted HA (SiHA), and strontium-substituted HA (SrHA), and implanted in ovine femoral condylar defects. Implants were retrieved after 6 weeks and histological and histomorphometric evaluation were compared to electrochemically coated implants with uncoated and HA plasma sprayed controls. The HA, SiHA and SrHA coatings had Ca:P, Ca:(P+Si) and (Ca+Sr):P ratios of 1.53, 1.14 and 1.32 respectively. Electrochemically coated implants significantly promoted bone attachment to the implant surfaces of the inner pores and displayed improved osseointegration compared to uncoated scaffolds for both pore sizes (p<0.001), whereas bone ingrowth was restricted to the surface for HA plasma coated or uncoated implants. Electrochemically coated HA implants achieved the highest osseointegration, followed by SrHA coated implants, and both coatings exhibited significantly more bone growth than plasma sprayed groups (p≤0.01 for all 4 cases). SiHA had significantly more osseointegration when compared against the uncoated control, but no significant difference compared with other coatings. There was no significant difference in ingrowth or osseointegration between pore sizes, and the bone-implant-contact was significantly higher in the electrochemical HA than in SiHA or SrHA. These results suggest that osseointegration is insensitive to pore size, whereas surface modification through the presence of an osteoconductive coating plays an important role in improving osseointegration, which may be critically important for extensively porous implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.