2.1 implant materials
In this investigation, all samples were fabricated using cpTi-HA-coating, which refers to a Ti-6Al-4V forged alloy in accordance with the DIN ISO 5832/3 standard.
Cementless stems, which are utilized in the context of Hip arthroplasty[4], can be obtained with either the implaFix® cpTi-coating or the implaFix® HA-coating. These particular samples enjoy extensive usage in the aforementioned field. A machine was employed to precisely sever the implant rods in a perpendicular manner. Each individual specimen was provided in the form of cylinders with an average diameter of 9 mm and a length of 10 mm (refer to Figure.1). The process of creating porous structures through the Titanium Plasma Spray (TPS) technique reduces the fatigue resistance to an acceptable level. The HA coating possesses a layer thickness of approximately 60 µm, a roughness of 40 µm, and an adhesive strength exceeding 15 MPa.
2.2 Implantation procedure
This investigation was conducted on three miniature specific-pathogen-free pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus), 30 months old with an approximate average weight of 30kg. We obtained approval for the study from the local ethics committee and performed the surgical component of the project at the Chulalongkorn University Laboratory Animal Center (CULAC) in Bangkok, Thailand, under IRB number 2173022. In accordance with laboratory animal care policies, the animals and our experimental study were treated in accordance with the guidelines of the CULAC-ACUP and ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. The animals were individually housed in cages within a controlled animal room, maintained at a temperature of 22 ± 2°C and a relative humidity of 50 ± 20%, with standard fluorescent lighting and ventilation occurring 15–20 times per hour. Additionally, a 12-hour light-dark cycle was maintained. The animals had unrestricted access to both diet and water. A commercial pig feed was provided twice daily at a rate of 1–2% of the animal's body weight in pellet form.
Anesthetic induction was conducted using injectable anesthesia, consisting of 5 mg/kg tiletamine-zolazepam (Zoletil, Virbac, Thailand), 2.5 mg/kg ketamine (Alfasan Nederland BV, Netherlands) and 12.5 mg/kg xylazine (X-Lazine, L.B.S. Laboratory Ltd, Thailand). Following induction, the auricular vein was catheterized for the administration of normal saline solution. All pigs underwent endotracheal intubation, receiving 100% oxygen to maintain optimal oxygen levels. Anesthesia was maintained throughout the procedure using an appropriate concentration of isoflurane for the surgery. Cefazolin (25 mg/kg) was administered intravenously as prophylaxis antibiotic and repeated every 90 minutes. Craniodorsal approach through hip joint was performed by craniolateral incision as previously described (Johnson). Skin was incised caudally over the trochanter of the femur. Subcutaneous tissues and fascia lata were reflected. The biceps femoris muscle was retracted caudally, allowing for identification of the sciatic nerve. The superficial gluteal muscle was then be retracted craniodorsally, facilitating reaming of the femoral canal from a superior direction. The diameter of the drill was smaller than that of the implant by 2 mm. Intramedullary reaming was performed with sterile saline irrigation to insert the implant using a press-fit technique. The placement of the femoral implant was guided by x-ray, with three implants being inserted into each femur. (Figure.2) Subcutaneous will be closed with monosyn 0 or 2/0 and skin will be closed with 2/0 nylon sutures. After surgery, all pigs received cefazolin 25 mg/kg intramuscularly injection daily for 7 days. Carprofen (Rimadyl®, Laboratorios Pfizer LTDA, Guarulhos, Sao Paulo, Brazil) at dose 3 mg/kg will be used as analgesic and subcutaneously injected daily after operation for 5 days. Wound dressing will be changed, and betadine will be applied daily. Stitches will be removed at 10 days after surgery.
Clinical signs and pain were carefully monitored. After a period of three months, all miniature pigs were humanely euthanized for sample collection. Premedication and anesthesia were conducted following the same protocol as used for surgery, ensuring that each animal reached a deep plane of anesthesia. Throughout the process, animals were closely monitored to prevent any pain or distress. Once fully anesthetized, 75–150 mg/kg of potassium chloride (KCl) was administered intravenously. Vital signs, including heart rate and respiratory rate, were monitored to confirm the absence of cardiovascular function, ensuring complete euthanasia. The femoral bones were dissected and cut under fluoroscopy. (Figure.3) The each specimen of bony was preserved with embalming solution and kept at a temperature below 5°C for 5–7 days.[19]The soft-embalming solution was developed by the faculty of veterinary science, Chulalongkorn university which contained fixative agent, preservative agent, humectant agent, and antioxidant agent. The collected specimens were sent for biomechanical testing.
2.3 Histological and scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation.
All Specimens were evaluated an osteointegration process by 3D picture and histomorphology. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to check a crack of total implant-bone interface. (Figure.4)
For histomorphology, all sections were cleaned up by normal saline and decalcified. After that the sections were placed in a slide to Hematoxylin and Eosin staining. The bone–implant interface was visualized using microscope.
2.4 Push-out testing
According to eight implants were used to evaluate ultimate interfacial strength. The implants were measured and adjusted an implant surface for perpendicular to vertical line. We adjust an alignment and measure by water level gauge (Figure.5A). Due to the testing process using the steel rod, it is necessary to ensure that the surface of the workpiece is in direct contact with the pressing rod to analyze the shear force accurately (Figure.5B).
The underlying receiver beneath the workpiece will have a circular opening at the centerline, equal to the size of the implant. This allows for movement of the implant against the bone when a load is applied. So, the bone will be counteracted by the underlying receiver beneath the workpiece. (Figure.6)
To evaluate the ultimate interfacial strength of the implants at the bone–implant interface, pull-out testing was performed using an Instron Model 1125 (Instron Corp, Canton, MA, USA).
The Instron machine was programmed at a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min. Ultimate interfacial strength (s) was calculated using the formula:
Ultimate interfacial strength = P / πdh
P was the ultimate pull-out load (N), d (mm) was the major diameter of the implant, and h (mm) was the length of the implant in the bone.
To ensure that a consistent compressive force is applied to the workpiece at all times, we will observe the graph of force increasing over the duration of the experiment. (Figure.7)