Unmodified Ti6Al4V can osseointegrate, but sometimes this capacity needs to be improved. This study aimed to see how much porosity improves osseointegration in a Ti6Al4V implant. Three types of Ti6Al4V cylindrical-shaped implants (13.00 mm length × 5.00 mm diameter) were evaluated: solid sandblasted acid-etched, sintered, and porous 3D-printed (681.00 µm average pore size). Fifteen 20-week-old nullipara female parasite-free New Zealand California white rabbits were used, employing the femoral condyle defect model and undertaking µ-CT analysis and pull-out testing eight weeks later. On µ-CT densitometric analysis, the solid sandblasted rod showed the highest new bone growth around the implant. Bone growth was higher inside the implants for the porous 3D-printed (54.00 ± 5.00 mm³) than for the sintered (1.00 ± 0.05 mm³) and zero for the sandblasted implants. In the pull-out test, there were no statistically significant differences in the ANOVA analysis between the sintered (900.00 N ± 310.00 N) and porous 3D-printed (700.00 N ± 220.00 N) implants. Such differences did exist between the sandblasted material (220.00 N ± 50.00 N) and the two other materials (sintered p 0.002, porous p 0.034). The porous 3D-printed and sintered implant pull-out strength were significantly better than that of the solid rod sandblasted implant. Still, there were no statistically significant differences between the first two.

Study design: Biomechanical study of a nucleus replacement with a finite element model. Objective: To validate a Bionate 80A ring-shaped nucleus replacement. Methods: The ANSYS lumbar spine model made from lumbar spine X-rays and magnetic resonance images obtained from cadaveric spine specimens were used. All materials were assumed homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic. We studied three options: intact spine, nucleotomy, and nucleus implant. Two loading conditions were evaluated at L₃-L₄, L₄-L₅, and L₅-S₁ discs: a 1000 N axial compression load and this load after the addition of 8 Nm flexion moment in the sagittal plane plus 8 Nm axial rotation torque. Results: Maximum nucleus implant axial compression stresses in the range of 16–34 MPa and tensile stress in the range of 5–16 MPa, below Bionate 80A resistance were obtained. Therefore, there is little risk of permanent implant deformation or severe damage under normal loading conditions. Nucleotomy increased segment mobility, zygapophyseal joint and end plate pressures, and annulus stresses and strains. All these parameters were restored satisfactorily by nucleus replacement but never reached the intact status. In addition, annulus stresses and strains were lower with the nucleus implant than in the intact spine under axial compression and higher under complex loading conditions. Conclusions: Under normal loading conditions, there is a negligible risk of nucleus replacement, permanent deformation or severe damage. Nucleotomy increased segmental mobility, zygapophyseal joint pressures, and annulus stresses and strains. Nucleus replacement restored segmental mobility and zygapophyseal joint pressures close to the intact spine. End plate pressures were similar for the intact and nucleus implant conditions under both loading modes. Manufacturing customized nucleus implants is considered feasible, as satisfactory biomechanical performance is confirmed.

New subperiosteal dental implants were designed to offer new options to edentulous patients with severe bone resorption for whom endosseous dental implants are not advisable. In our study, we aimed to design and manufacture subperiosteal dental implants with a minimum volume to facilitate surgical maneuvers and metal coverage by mucosa while ensuring maximal long-term implant strength and functionality. With cone-beam CT-scan data obtained from an edentulous patient, a maxilla and mandible recreation were created, and subperiosteal implants were designed and analyzed with FEA (250 MPa infinite-life limit stress). We redesigned them until they stood the infinite-life limit loads mentioned above. Then, they were manufactured with Ti6Al4V alloy and laser-powder bed fusion technology. All implants withstood mechanical tests (450 N static and 150 N loads for five-million cycle 150 N fatigue tests) with no failures. The first design resulted in maxillary and mandibular implant failures. Through the redesign process, the implant volume was reduced, and the number and placement of bone fixation screws were optimized while maintaining resistance to chewing. Once manufactured, these new implants withstood the loads mentioned above without failure. Our subperiosteal dental implants are an option for edentulous patients with severe maxilla and mandibular bone resorption. Manufactured with Ti6Al4V alloy and laser-powder bed fusion technology, they withstood the above-mentioned mechanical tests without failure.

Background context. Dental implants are designed to replace a missing tooth. Implant stability is vital to achieving osseointegration and successful implantation. Although there are many implants available on the market, there is room for improvement. Purpose. We describe a new dental implant with improved primary stability features. Study design. Lab bench test studies. Methods. We evaluated the new implant using static and flexion–compression fatigue tests with compression loads, 35 Ncm tightening torque, displacement control, 0.01 mm/s actuator movement speed, and 9–10 Hz load application frequency, obtaining a cyclic load diagram. We applied variable cyclic loadings of predetermined amplitude and recorded the number of cycles until failure. The test ended with implant failure (breakage or permanent deformation) or reaching five million cycles for each load. Results. Mean stiffness was 1151.13 ± 133.62 SD N/mm, mean elastic limit force 463.94 ± 75.03 SD N, and displacement 0.52 ± 0.04 SD mm, at failure force 663.21 ± 54.23 SD N and displacement 1.56 ± 0.18 SD mm, fatigue load limit 132.6 ± 10.4 N, and maximum bending moment 729.3 ± 69.43 mm/N. Conclusions. The implant fatigue limit is satisfactory for incisor and canine teeth and between the values for premolars and molars for healthy patients. The system exceeds five million cycles when subjected to a 132.60 N load, ensuring long-lasting life against loads below the fatigue limit.

Biomechanical study in cadaveric specimens. The commercially available lumbar disc prostheses do not reproduce the intact disc's Instantaneous centre of Rotation (ICR), thus inducing an overload on adjacent anatomical structures, promoting secondary degeneration. To examine biomechanical testing of cadaveric lumbar spine specimens in order to evaluate and define the ICR of intact lumbar discs. Twelve cold preserved fresh human cadaveric lumbosacral spine specimens were subjected to computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomechanical testing. Kinematic studies were performed to analyse range of movements in order to determine ICR. Flexoextension and lateral bending tests showed a positive linear correlation between the angle rotated and the displacement of the ICR in different axes. ICR has not been taken into account in any of the available literature regarding lumbar disc prosthesis. Considering our results, neither the actual ball-and-socket nor the withdrawn elastomeric nucleus models fit the biomechanics of the lumbar spine, which could at least in part explain the failure rates of the implants in terms of postoperative failed back syndrome (low back pain). It is reasonable to consider then that an implant should also adapt the equations of the movement of the intact ICR of the joint to the post-surgical ICR. This is the first cadaveric study on the ICR of the human lumbar spine. We have shown that it is feasible to calculate and consider this parameter in order to design future prosthesis with improved clinical and biomechanical characteristics.

Primary dental implant stability is critical to enable osseointegration. We assessed the primary stability of our newly designed dental implant. We used the calf rib bone animal model. Our implant has an outside tapered screw with two inside barrettes that deploy with a second screw situated at the implant’s crown. We used ten calf ribs with III/IV bone density and inserted ten implants per rib. We deployed the barrettes in the calf rib’s transversal direction to support against the nearby cortical bone. We measured the primary implant’s stability with resonance frequency analysis and collected the Implant Stability Quota (ISQ) in the transverse and longitudinal calf rib planes before (PRE) and after (POS) deploying the barrette. The mean ISQ was PRE 84.00 ± 3.56 and POS 84.73 ± 4.53 (p = 0.84) in the longitudinal plane and PRE 81.80 ± 2.74 and POS 83.53 ± 4.53 (0.27) in the transverse plane. The barrettes’ insertion increases our dental implant primary stability by 11% in the transverse plane and 2% in the longitudinal plane. Our dental implant ISQ values are in the higher range than those reported in the literature and reflect high primary stability after insertion. The barrette deployment improves the dental implant’s primary stability, particularly in the direction in which it deploys (transverse plane).