Histomorphometric and mechanical analysis of the hydroxyapatite-bone interface after electromagnetic stimulation. An experimental study in rabbits

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Volumn 88, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 123-128

  Fini, Milena ^a   Giavaresi, G ^a   Giardino, R ^a   Cavani, F ^b   Cadossi, R ^c  

^a RIZZOLI ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

^c ICEmB IGEA Srl   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMATERIAL; HYDROXYAPATITE; OXYTETRACYCLINE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE REGENERATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION FUNCTION; CORTICAL BONE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FORCE; HARDNESS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; IMPLANT; IN VIVO STUDY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PULSED ELECTRIC FIELD; SHEAR STRENGTH; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ANIMALS; BIOMECHANICS; DIAPHYSES; DURAPATITE; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS; FEMUR; HIP PROSTHESIS; JOINT PROSTHESIS; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; OSSEOINTEGRATION; RABBITS; SHEAR STRENGTH;

EID: 31144468187     PISSN: 0301620X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.16496     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Spadaro JA, Albanese SA, Chase SE. Electromagnetic effects on bone formation at implants in the medullary canal in rabbits. J Orthop Res 1990;8:685-93.
2. Torricelli P, Fini M, Giavaresi G, et al. Biomimetic polymethylmethacrylate-based bone substitute: a comparative in vitro evaluation of the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field exposure. J Biomed Mater Res A 2003;64:182-8.
3. Pickering SA, Bayston R, Scammel BE. Augmentation of antibiotic efficacy in infection of orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2003;85-B:588-93.
4. Fini M, Giavaresi G, Setti S, et al. Current trends in the enhancement of biomaterial osteointegration: biophysical stimulation. Int J Artif Organs 2004;27:681-90.
5. Smith TL, Wong-Gibbons D, Maultsby J. Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Orthop Res 2004;22:80-4.
6. Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, et al. Effect of low frequency electromagnetic fields on A2A adenosin receptors in human neutrophils. Br J Pharmacol 2002;136:57-66.
7. Thomsen P, Ericson LE. Inflammatory cell response to bone implant surfaces. In: Davies JE, ed. The bone-biomaterial interface. Toronto; University of Toronto Press, 1991:153-60.
8. Buzzà EP, Ghibli JA, Arbeiro RH, Barbosa JR. Effects of electromagnetic field on bone healing around commercially pure titanium surface: histologic and mechanical study in rabbits. Implant Dent 2003;12:182-7.
9. Fini M, Cadossi R, Cané V, et al. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the osteointegration of hydroxyapatite implants in cancellous bone: a morphologic and microstructural in vivo study. J Orthop Res 2002;20:756-63.
10. Ijiri K, Matsunaga S, Fukuyama K, et al. The effect of pulsing electrical fields on bone ingrowth into a porous coated implant. Anticancer Res 1996;16:2853-6.
11. Matsumoto H, Ochi M, Abiko Y, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields promote bone formation around dental implants inserted into the femurs of rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:354-60.
12. Ottani V, Raspanti M, Martini O, et al. Electromagnetic stimulation on the bone growth using backscattered electron imaging. Micron 2002;33:121-5.
13. Shimizu T, Zerwekh JE, Violeman T, et al. Bone ingrowth into porous calcium phosphate ceramics: influence of pulsing electromagnetic fields. J Orthop Res 1988;6: 248-58.
14. Parfitt AM, Drezner MK, Gliorieux FH, et al. Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols and units. J Bone Miner Res 1987;2:595-610.
15. Dhert WJA, Jansen JA. The validity of a single push-out test. In: An YH, Draughin RA, eds. Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC, 2000:477-88.
16. LeGeros RZ, Craig RG. Strategies to affect bone remodelling: osteointegration. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8(Suppl 2):583-96.
17. Canè V, Botti P, Soana S. Pulsed magnetic fields improve osteoblast activity during the repair of an experimental osseous defect. J Orthop Res 1993;11:664-70.
18. Hulshoff JEG, Hayakawa T, van Dijk K, et al. Mechanical and histologic evaluation of Ca-P plasma-spray and magnetron sputter-coated implants in trabecular bone of the goat. J Biomed Mater Res 1997;36:75-83.
19. Huja SS, Katona TR, Roberts WE. Microhardness testing of bone. In: An YH, Draughin RA, eds. Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC, 2000:247-56.
20. Corten FG, Caulier H, van der Waerden JP, et al. Assessment of bone surrounding implants in goats: ex vivo measurements by dual x-ray absorptiometry. Biomaterials 1997;18:495-501.
21. Torricelli P, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Cane V, Giardino R. In vitro evaluation of the effects of electromagnetic fields used for bone healing. Electro Magnetobiol 1998;17: 335-42.
22. Canè V, Botti P, Farneti O, Soana S. Electromagnetic stimulation of bone repair: a histomorphometric study. J Orthop Res 1991;9:908-17.
23. Capanna R, Donati D, Masetti C, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection: a double blind study. Clin Orthop 1994;306:213-21.
24. Konttinen YT, Zhao D, Beklen A, et al. The microenvironment around total hip replacement prostheses. Clin Orthop 2005;430:28-38.