The authors would like to thank Biomet 3i for their continued financial support, and particularly Randy Goodman for help in the design and fabrication of the custom parts. Spencer Bell is a recipient of an Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship, provided by the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We would also like to thank Dr. John Brunski for his very valuable feedback during manuscript preparation.

1. Implant Design, Fabrication, and Surface Treatment
<ol>
	<li>Manufacture rectangular implants (dimensions 4 mm x 2.5 mm x 1.3 mm; length x width x height) from commercially pure titanium (cpTi). Drill a hole centrally down the long axis of the implant (diameter = 0.7 mm) to facilitate early implant stability within the surgical site and subsequent mechanical testing (Figure 1).</li>
	<li>Treat the upper and lower surfaces of the implant.
	<ol>
		<li>To create two distinct surfaces, use a standard gr...

<ol>
	<li>Brunski, J. B. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=In+vivo+bone+response+to+biomechanical+loading+at+the+bone-dental+implant+interface.">In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone-dental implant interface.</a> Adv. Dental Res. 13, 99-119 (1999).</li><li>Brunski, J. B., Glantz, P. -. O., Helms, J. A., Nanci, A., Br&#229;nemark, P. I., Chien, S., Gr&#246;ndahl, H. G., Robinson, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Transfer of mechanical load across the interface. In: The Osseointegration Book. , 209-249 (2005).</li><li>Br&#229;nemark, R., Ohrnell, L. O., Nilsson, P., Thomsen, P. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Biomechanical+characterization+of+osseointegration+during+healing:+an+experimental+in+vivo+study+in+the+rat.">Biomechanical characterization of osseointegration during healing: an experimental in vivo study in the rat.</a> Biomaterials. 18 (14), 969-978 (1997).</li><li>It&#228;l&#228;, A., Koort, J., Yl&#228;nen, H. O., Hupa, M., Aro, H. T. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Biologic+significance+of+surface+microroughing+in+bone+incorporation+of+porous+bioactive+glass+implants.">Biologic significance of surface microroughing in bone incorporation of porous bioactive glass implants.</a> J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 67 (2), 496-503 (2003).</li><li>Br&#229;nemark, R., Emanuelsson, L., Palmquist, A., Thomsen, P. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Bone+response+to+laser-induced+micro-+and+nano-size+titanium+surface+features.">Bone response to laser-induced micro- and nano-size titanium surface features.</a> Nanomedicine. 7 (2), 220-227 (2011).</li><li>Kato, H., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Bonding+of+Alkali-+and+Heat-Treated+Tantalum+Implants+to+Bone.">Bonding of Alkali- and Heat-Treated Tantalum Implants to Bone.</a> J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 53, 28-35 (2000).</li><li>Hong, L., Xu, H. C., de Groot, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Tensile+strength+of+the+interface+between+hydroxyapatite+and+bone.">Tensile strength of the interface between hydroxyapatite and bone.</a> J. Biomed. Mater. 26 (1), 7-18 (1992).</li><li>Currey, J. D. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Mechanical+properties+of+bone+tissues+with+greatly+different+functions.">Mechanical properties of bone tissues with greatly different functions.</a> J. Biomech. 9 (12), 313-319 (1979).</li><li>Nakamura, T., Yamamuro, T., Higashi, S., Kokubo, T., Itoo, S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=A+new+glass-ceramic+for+bone+replacement:+evaluation+of+its+bonding+to+bone+tissue.">A new glass-ceramic for bone replacement: evaluation of its bonding to bone tissue.</a> J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 19 (6), 685-698 (1985).</li><li>Hench, L. L., Splinter, R. J., Allen, W. C., Greenlee, T. K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Bonding+mechanisms+at+the+interface+of+ceramic+prosthetic+materials.">Bonding mechanisms at the interface of ceramic prosthetic materials.</a> J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Symp. 1, 117-141 (1972).</li><li>Edwards, J. T., Brunski, J. B., Higuchi, H. W. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Mechanical+and+morphologic+investigation+of+the+tensile+strength+of+a+bone-hydroxyapatite+interface.">Mechanical and morphologic investigation of the tensile strength of a bone-hydroxyapatite interface.</a> J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 36 (4), 454-468 (1997).</li><li>Davies, J. E., Ajami, E., Moineddin, R., Mendes, V. C. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+roles+of+different+scale+ranges+of+surface+implant+topography+on+the+stability+of+the+bone/implant+interface.">The roles of different scale ranges of surface implant topography on the stability of the bone/implant interface.</a> Biomaterials. 34, 3535-3546 (2013).</li><li>R&#248;nold, H. J., Lyngstadaasb, S. P., Ellingsen, J. E. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Analysing+the+optimal+value+for+titanium+implant+roughness+in+bone+attachment+using+a+tensile+test.">Analysing the optimal value for titanium implant roughness in bone attachment using a tensile test.</a> Biomaterials. 24, 4559-4564 (2003).</li><li>Mendes, V. C., Moineddin, R., Davies, J. E. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+effect+of+discrete+calcium+phosphate+nanocrystals+on+bone-bonding+to+titanium+surfaces.">The effect of discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystals on bone-bonding to titanium surfaces.</a> Biomaterials. 28 (32), 4748-4755 (2007).</li><li>Skedros, J. G., Holmes, J. L., Vajda, E. G., Bloebaum, R. D. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Cement+lines+of+secondary+osteons+in+human+bone+are+not+mineral+deficient:+new+data+in+a+historical+perspective.">Cement lines of secondary osteons in human bone are not mineral deficient: new data in a historical perspective.</a> Anat Rec. 286, 781-803 (2005).</li><li>McKee, M. D., Nanci, A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Osteopontin+and+the+bone+remodelling+sequence:+colloidal-gold+immunocytochemistry+of+an+interfacial+extracellular+matrix+protein.">Osteopontin and the bone remodelling sequence: colloidal-gold immunocytochemistry of an interfacial extracellular matrix protein.</a> Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 760, 177-189 (1995).</li><li>Davies, J. E., Hosseini, M. M., Davies, J. E. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Histodynamics of endosseous wound healing In: Bone Engineering. , 1-14 (2000).</li><li>Welsh, R. P., Pilliar, R. M., Macnab, I. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Surgical+implants.+The+role+of+surface+porosity+in+fixation+to+bone+and+acrylic.">Surgical implants. The role of surface porosity in fixation to bone and acrylic.</a> J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 53 (5), 963-977 (1971).</li><li>O'Brien, F. J., Taylor, D., Clive, L. T. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+effect+of+bone+microstructure+on+the+initiation+and+growth+of+microcracks.">The effect of bone microstructure on the initiation and growth of microcracks.</a> J. Orthop. Res. 23 (2), 475-480 (2005).</li><li>Steflik, , et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Ultrastructural+analyses+of+the+attachment+(bonding)+zone+between+bone+and+implanted+biomaterials.">Ultrastructural analyses of the attachment (bonding) zone between bone and implanted biomaterials.</a> J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 39 (4), 611-620 (1998).</li><li>Sul, Y. -. T., Johansson, C., Albrektsson, T. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=A+novel+in+vivo+method+for+quantifying+the+interfacial+biochemical+bond+strength+of+bone+implants.">A novel in vivo method for quantifying the interfacial biochemical bond strength of bone implants.</a> J. Royal Soc. 7 (42), 81-90 (2010).</li><li>Wong, M., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Effect+of+surface+topography+on+the+osseointegration+of+implant+materials+in+trabecular+bone.">Effect of surface topography on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone.</a> J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 29 (12), 1567-1575 (1995).</li><li>Gotfredsen, K., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Anchorage+of+titanium+implants+with+different+surface+characteristics:+an+experimental+study+in+rabbits.">Anchorage of titanium implants with different surface characteristics: an experimental study in rabbits.</a> Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2 (3), 120-128 (2000).</li><li>Lekholm, U., Zarb, G. A., Albrektsson, T. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Patient selection and preparation. In: Tissue integrated prostheses. , 199-209 (1985).</li></ol>

The authors received funding and materials support from Biomet 3i (Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA). Biomet 3i had no part in the writing of this manuscript or the design of experiments described.

The mechanical testing model presented here provides an improved method to assess the anchorage of bone to candidate implant surfaces, since it allows for accurate perpendicular, or parallel, alignment of the test sample with the axis of disruption force applied; and limits the fracture zone to within half a millimeter of the implant surface. The model is easily incorporated into studies comparing the effectiveness of any range of chemically, or mechanically, modified surfaces; but is not suitable for smooth surfaces as ...

Assessing anchorage of bone to endosseous implant surfaces has been the focus of considerable attention, for which many mechanical testing methods have been described1,2. All such methods impose a force to disrupt the bone/implant model being employed, and can be broadly grouped into shear, generally presented as push-out or pull-out models3,4, reverse torque3,5, and tensile types6,7. Commonly in such tests, either bone8 or implant material (in the case of brittle glasses and ceramics9,10) is fractured and, assuming some form of anchorage has occurred, the bone/implant interface remains (at least partially) intact. Such experimental outcomes mean not only that the force required to cause the fracture (or disruption) of the model is not the force required to separate the bone/implant interface11,12, but also that the complex surface area of the created fracture plane can be refractory to accurate measurement. Nevertheless, such tests can be clinically relevant, since they provide a comparative gauge of the ability of implants of differing surface designs to be anchored in bone. However, it should also be noted that such comparisons are only valid within an experimental model, while comparisons between experimental models are fraught with difficulty since investigators use different animal species exhibiting either lamellar or woven bone; trabecular or cortical bone healing models, and different mechanical test geometries and conditions.
In an effort to derive a measurement of the tensile strength of the bone/implant interface, many investigators have used the nominal surface area of the implant to derive a &#34;tensile strength&#34; value, since tensile strength is measured as force per unit area. This is clearly an approximation given, as explained above, that the bone/implant interface remains intact in many of the disruption tests employed. In addition measuring the surface area of implants, particularly topographically complex surfaces, is limited by the resolution of the measurement technique as discussed by Ronald et al.13&#160;However, as reviewed by Brunski et al.2, when the nominal surface area of an implant is taken into account, apparent differences in &#34;tensile strength&#34; associated with different implant surface designs are negated, suggesting that implant surfaces with higher surface area provide larger areas of bone/implant contact and thus require more force to fracture the model. The implication therefore is that more topographically complex surfaces can increase contact osteogenesis, which results in greater bone implant contact (BIC) and resultant higher disruption values in mechanical tests. Contact osteogenesis is the product of two distinct phenomena: osteoconduction and bone formation. Indeed, we have shown that increases in osteoconduction on topographically complex surfaces can be quantified by measuring the resultant BIC14, and that such surfaces also result in higher mechanical disruption values12.
However, it is salutary to note that peri-implant bone can form by two mechanisms. In contact osteogenesis cells of mesenchymal origin migrate to the implant surface (osteoconduction), differentiate into bone cells, and elaborate de novo bone matrix on the implant surface (bone formation). The first bony matrix elaborated is a mineralized cement line as seen in normal bone remodeling15&#160;(there is much confusion in the literature concerning this mineralized biological structure that is sometimes thought to be un-mineralized1 or is syncretized with all interfaces in bone16&#160;-&#160;for a full discussion on this topic see&#160;Davies and&#160;Hosseini17). Contact osteogenesis is an essential prerequisite for the phenomenon of bone-bonding, but is nonessential for bone ingrowth18. The mineralized cement line of bone is mechanically weaker than the mineralized collagen compartment of bone19. Thus, intuitively, if the interdigitation of cement line matrix with implant nano&#160;features is compared with bone tissue in growth into macro implant features then the mechanical force required to disrupt the former would, reasonably, be expected to be less than the latter, and we have recently demonstrated this experimentally12.
Peri-implant bone can also form by distance osteogenesis. In this case, bone is deposited on the old bone surface and gets progressively closer to the implant surface resulting in an interface comprising amorphous matrix and the remains of osteogenic cells20. In general, distance osteogenesis is associated with smooth, or machined, endosseous implant surfaces and is often seen in cortical bone healing, while microtopographically complex surfaces are associated with contact osteogenesis that is more typical of trabecular bone healing. Tensile test models using smooth implant surfaces and cortical bone healing have been able to test the adhesive properties of this amorphous biological matrix absent of the contact osteogenesis associated with topographically complex surfaces, and have shown that the so called &#8220;biochemical&#8221; bonding that occurs provides a minor component of the &#8220;tensile strength&#8221; values reported with topographically complex surfaces21. On the contrary, using a trabecular bone healing model, Wong et al.22 showed &#8220;an excellent correlation&#8221; between implant surface roughness and push-out failure load, and indicated that chemical bonding indeed played a negligible role in anchorage of bone to the implant surface. While it is probable that both contact and distance osteogenesis occur, to differing degrees, in all endosseous peri-implant healing compartments, microtopographically complex surfaces have shown themselves to be particularly advantageous in trabecular bony healing compartments23. The latter are classified as Class III or Class IV bone in the dental literature24.
Our purpose has been to focus on the mechanisms of contact osteogenesis and the resultant bone/implant anchorage that can ensue in a trabecular bone healing environment. This anchorage, which is dependent on the topography of the implant surface (see above), can occur at different scale-ranges. On the one hand, only submicron implant features are implicated in bone-bonding -&#160;as described by interdigitation of the bony cement line matrix with such surfaces, and seen on bioactive glasses, ceramics and reticulate metal oxides. On the other, bone tissue (sometimes complete with blood vasculature) can grow into multi-micron, or macro-scale, features of implant surfaces18. Both cases result in a form of bone anchorage to the implant surface, although the mechanisms are clearly different. However, a common failing of the majority of mechanical testing methods referenced above is to align the disruption force in an exactly perpendicular, or parallel plane to that of the implant surface (depending on whether tensile or shear mode is employed). We report herein a method that overcomes this limitation.

<table border="1" fo:keep-together.within-page="1" fo:keep-with-next.within-page="always">
	<tbody>
		<tr >
			<td >Dulbecco&#8217;s Phosphate Buffer solution (DPBS)</td>
			<td >Gibco Life Technologies, Burlington, ON, Canada</td>
			<td >14190-250</td>
			<td ></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >10% neutral buffered formalin solution</td>
			<td >Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC., Canada</td>
			<td >HT501128-4L</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Custom-designed rectangular implants (commercially pure titanium; dimensions: 4mm x 2.5mm x 1.3mm with a 0.7mm hole drilled centrally down the long axis)</td>
			<td >Biomet 3i, FL, USA</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Custom-designed breakaway mould</td>
			<td >Biomet 3i, FL, USA</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Isoflurane</td>
			<td >Baxter Internationl Inc.</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Buprenorphine</td>
			<td >Bedford Laboratories</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >10% betadine</td>
			<td >Bruce Medical, MA, US</td>
			<td >FR-2200-90</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Scalpel</td>
			<td >Almedic, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada</td>
			<td >2586-M36-0100</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Scalpel blade #15 (sterile)</td>
			<td >Magna, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada</td>
			<td >2586</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Periosteal elevator #24G</td>
			<td >Spectrum Surgical, OH, USA</td>
			<td >EX7</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Forceps</td>
			<td >Almedic, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada</td>
			<td >7747-A10-108</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Tissue forceps</td>
			<td >Almedic, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada</td>
			<td >7722-A10-308</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Scissors</td>
			<td >Almedic, Medstore, University of Toronto</td>
			<td >7603-A8-240</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Absorbant Fabric General Purpose Drape (sterile)</td>
			<td >Vitality Medical</td>
			<td >1089</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Gauze (non-sterile)</td>
			<td >VWR</td>
			<td >89133-260</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Needles 25G X 5/8&#34; (disposable)</td>
			<td >BD, Canada</td>
			<td >305122</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Syringes (sterile)</td>
			<td >VWR, Canada</td>
			<td >CABD309653</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Needle Driver</td>
			<td >Almedic, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada</td>
			<td >A17-132</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Dynarex Surgical gloves (sterile)</td>
			<td >Amazon.com</td>
			<td >2475</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Surgical masks</td>
			<td >Fisherbrand, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada</td>
			<td >296360759</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >0.9% sterile saline</td>
			<td >House brand, Medstore, University of Toronto, Canada</td>
			<td >1011-L8001</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Hair clippers</td>
			<td >Remington, US</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >4-0 Polysorb</td>
			<td >Syneture</td>
			<td >SL5627G</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >9mm Wound Clips</td>
			<td >Becton Dickinson, MD, USA</td>
			<td >427631</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >ImplantMED DU 900 and WS-75 dental hand piece&#160;</td>
			<td >W&#38;H Dentalwerk, Austria</td>
			<td >DU1000US</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >1.3 mm twist drill</td>
			<td >Brasseler, GA, USA</td>
			<td >203.21.013</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >1.3 mm dental burr&#160;</td>
			<td >Biomet 3i, FL, USA</td>
			<td >custom</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >1.2 mm cylindrical side-cutting burr</td>
			<td >Biomet 3i, FL, USA</td>
			<td >custom</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Cylindrical diamond burr</td>
			<td >Brasseler, GA, USA</td>
			<td >H1.21.014</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td rowspan="2" >High speed dental drilling system</td>
			<td >Handpiece: KaVo Dental Corporation, IL, USA</td>
			<td rowspan="2" >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Handpiece Control: DCI International, OR, USA</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >99.5% Ultra Pure sucrose</td>
			<td >BioShop Canada Inc., Burlington, ON, Canada</td>
			<td >57-50-1</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Flowable dental composite</td>
			<td >Filtek Supreme Ultra Flowable Restorative, 3M ESPE, St Paul, Minnesota, USA</td>
			<td >6033XW</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Sapphire Plasma Arc high intensity curing light</td>
			<td >Den-Mat Holdings, Santa Maria, CA, USA</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Instron 4301 with 1000 N load cell</td>
			<td >Instron, Norwood, MA, USA</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td rowspan="2" >Red Wolf 10lb nylon &#64257;shing line</td>
			<td rowspan="2" >Canadian Tire, Canada</td>
			<td rowspan="2" >78-3610-6</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td ></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Leica Wild M3Z Stereozoom dissecting microscope</td>
			<td >Leica, Heerbrugg, Switzerland</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >QImaging Micropublisher 5.0 RTV digital camera coupled with QCapture 2.90.1 acquisition software</td>
			<td >QImaging, Surrey, BC, Canada</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Electronic digital caliper&#160;</td>
			<td >Fred V. Fowler Company, Inc., Newton, MA, USA</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr >
			<td >Mechanical testing instrument</td>
			<td >Instron, Norwood, MA, USA</td>
			<td >N/A</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

an improved mechanical testing method to assess bone-implant anchorage

Recent advances in material science have led to a substantial increase in the topographical complexity of implant surfaces, both on a micro- and a nano-scale. As such, traditional methods of describing implant surfaces -&#160;namely numerical determinants of surface roughness -&#160;are inadequate for predicting in vivo performance. Biomechanical testing provides an accurate and comparative platform to analyze the performance of biomaterial surfaces. An improved mechanical testing method to test the anchorage of bone to candidate implant surfaces is presented. The method is applicable to both early and later stages of healing and can be employed for any range of chemically or mechanically modified surfaces -&#160;but not smooth surfaces. Custom rectangular implants are placed bilaterally in the distal femora of male Wistar rats and collected with the surrounding bone. Test specimens are prepared and potted using a novel breakaway mold and the disruption test is conducted using a mechanical testing machine. This method allows for alignment of the disruption force exactly perpendicular, or parallel, to the plane of the implant surface, and provides an accurate and reproducible means for isolating an exact peri-implant region for testing.

All animals increased their ambulatory activity with time following their recovery from surgery. This is important because load has differential effects on topographies of different scale ranges, as we have recently reported12. A representative force/displacement curve for test specimens following mechanical testing is presented in Figure 9A, and the averaged data for each implant surface is presented in Figure 9B. The maximum force value achieved by each specimen was recorded...

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage at JoVE.com

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

An improved method to mechanically test bone anchorage to candidate implant surfaces is presented. This method allows for alignment of the disruption force exactly perpendicular, or parallel, to the plane of the implant surface, and provides an accurate means to direct the disruption forces to an exact peri-implant region.

Recent advances in material science have led to a substantial increase in the topographical complexity of implant surfaces, both on a micro- and a ...

an-improved-mechanical-testing-method-to-assess-bone-implant-anchorage

Research

JoVE Journal

Bioengineering

15.4K Views.  University of Toronto.  Un metodo migliore per meccanicamente prova l'ancoraggio osseo alle superfici implantari candidati viene presentato. Questo metodo consente l'allineamento della forza perturbazione esattamente perpendicolare o parallelo al piano della superficie dell'impianto, e fornisce un mezzo preciso per dirigere le forze interruzione una regione peri-implantari esatta. 