The development and pre-clinical evaluation of nano-texturised, biomimetic, surfaces of titanium (Ti) implants treated with titanium dioxide (TiO₂) nanotube arrays is reviewed. In vitro and in vivo evaluations show that TiO₂ nanotubes on Ti surfaces positively affect the osseointegration, cell differentiation, mineralisation, and anti-microbial properties. This surface treatment can be superimposed onto existing macro and micro porous Ti implants creating a surface texture that also interacts with cells at the nano level. Histology and mechanical pull-out testing of specimens in rabbits indicate that TiO₂ nanotubes improves bone bonding nine-fold (p = 0.008). The rate of mineralisation associated with TiO₂ nanotube surfaces is about three times that of non-treated Ti surfaces. In addition to improved osseointegration properties, TiO₂ nanotubes reduce the initial adhesion and colonisation of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Collectively, the properties of Ti implant surfaces enhanced with TiO₂ nanotubes show great promise.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B(1 Supple A):9–16.

The continual cycle of bone formation and resorption is carried out by osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts under the direction of the bone-signaling pathway. In certain situations the host cycle of bone repair is insufficient and requires the assistance of bone grafts and their substitutes. The fundamental properties of a bone graft are osteoconduction, osteoinduction, osteogenesis, and structural support. Options for bone grafting include autogenous and allograft bone and the various isolated or combined substitutes of calcium sulphate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. Not all bone grafts will have the same properties. As a result, understanding the requirements of the clinical situation and specific properties of the various types of bone grafts is necessary to identify the ideal graft. We present a review of the bone repair process and properties of bone grafts and their substitutes to help guide the clinician in the decision making process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):6–9