A histomorphometric and removal torque analysis of c.p. titanium implants inserted in reamed bone beds with and without acrylic cement

  • R. Morberg
  • T. Albrektsson


The marrow cavity was reamed in both tibias of six rabbits. In one of the tibias curing bone cement was inserted. Two titanium implants were inserted in the proximal metaphysis of each tibia. The removal torque was recorded after 7, 14, 20, 27, 34 and 42 weeks. After each torque test the implants were rotated back until an insertion torque of 20 N cm was arrived at. The subsequent removal torque increased for each measurement in the two groups and levelled off in the range 60–80 N cm after 20 weeks in the reamed tibia and in the range 40–50 N cm after 34 weeks in the bone cement tibia. Histomorphometry at 50 weeks after cement insertion revealed a significantly higher percentage of direct bone-to-implant contact for the implants in the non-cemented side, 83.6% versus 71.9% for the cemented tibia. There was also a higher percentage of bone in the summed area inside the thread and in an image mirror area outside the thread in the non-cemented tibia, compared to the cemented side, 93.6 and 89.6% respectively.


Polymer Titanium Torque Bone Cement Subsequent Removal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. AHNFELDT, P. HERBERTS, H. MALCHAU and G. B. J. ANDERSSON,Acta Orthop. Scand. Suppl. 238,61 (1990) 1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. HUISKES, in Proceedings of Workshop on the Bone-Implant Interface, edited by J. L. Lewis and J. O. Galante (American Academy of Orthopacdic Surgeons, Park Ridge, Illinois, 1983).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. ALBREKTSSON, in “Bone: A Treatise”, Vol. 7, edited by B. K. Hall (Telford Press, Caldwell, N.J., in press).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. C. JONES and D. S. HUNGERFORD,Clin. Orthop. 225 (1987) 192.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. JUDET, M. SIGUIER, B. BRUMPT and T. JUDET, ibid.137 (1978) 67.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. de WAAL MALEFIJT, thesis, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands (1988).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. DONATH and G. A. BREUNER,J. Oral Pathol. 11 (1982) 318.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. LINDER, in “Biocompatibility of Orthopaedic Implants”, Vol. 2, edited by D. F. Williams (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1982).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. LINDER and M. ROMANUS,Clin Orthop. 115 (1976) 303.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. E. ERIKSSON and T. ALBREKTSSON,J. Prosth. Dent. 50 (1983) 101.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. ERIKSSON, thesis, University of Gothenburg (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. ALBREKTSSON and F. BUCH,Arch. Orthop. Traum. Surg. in press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. THOMSEN, L. M. BJURSTEN and L. E. ERIKSSON,Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 20 (1986) 173.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. SUDMANN, O.-H. ANFINSEN, M. RAITL, G. BANG and E. SUDMANN,Acta Orthop. Scand. Suppl. 237,61 (1990) 63.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. DRAENERT, in “Implant Bone Interface”, edited by J. Older (Springer, London) p. 25.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. SUND and J. ROSENQUIST,Acta Orthop, Scand. 55 (1984) 83.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. ALBREKTSSON,Arch. Orthop. Traum. Surg. 102 (1984) 141.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. LINTNER,Acta Chir. Austr. 48 (suppl.) (1983) 3.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. MORBERG and T. ALBREKTSSON, submitted.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Morberg
    • 1
  • T. Albrektsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomaterials Group, Department of Handicap ResearchUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations