Abstract
The clinical use of hydroxyapatite (HA) coating is controversial especially in regard to the long-term performance of the coating and the effects of resorption. In each of 15 consenting patients we inserted two implants, coated with either HA or fluorapatite (FA) into the iliac crest. They were harvested at a mean of 13.6 ± 0.6 months after surgery.
Histological examination showed that bone ongrowth on the HA-coated implants was significantly greater (29%) than that on the FA-coated implants. When bone was present on the coating surface the HA coating was significantly thicker than the FA coating. When bone marrow was present, the HA coating was significantly thinner than the FA coating. The reduction in coating thickness when covered by bone or bone marrow was 23.1 ± 9.7 μm for HA and 5.1 ± 1.7 μm for FA (p < 0.01) suggesting that FA is more stable than HA against resorption by bone marrow.
The findings suggest that in man the osteoconductive properties of HA coating are superior to those of FA. Resorption rates for both coatings were approximately 20% of the coating thickness per year. Bone ongrowth appears to protect against resorption whereas bone marrow seems to accelerate resorption. No adverse reaction was seen in the surrounding bone.
