Biomedical Applications of CaPO4 Deposits: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Alfred Zheng and Version 3 by Alfred Zheng.

The clinical applications of CaPO4 alone were largely limited to non-load-bearing areas of the body. However, investigations have continued and researchers have begun to deposit biocompatible CaPO4 on the surface of mechanically strong but biologically inert or biotoxic materials in order to combine the benefits of various materials. For example, metal implants are used in artificial joints such as hip joints and artificial tooth roots as sufficient mechanical stability is required.  Since no metal alone causes osseointegration, i.e., they do not create a mechanically stable connection between the implant and bone tissue, they are coated with CaPO4 to create osseointegration. However, the problem of osseointegration is not limited to metals. Biodegradable polymers are also generally not bioactive. Therefore, to overcome this disadvantage, the surface of those polymers is also coated with CaPO4 and can be replaced by autogenous bone after implantation, as CaPO4 is involved in the same bone regeneration response as natural bones.

  • biomedical
  • CaPO4

1. Introduction

All known materials have their own specific properties and, depending on the applications, those properties may or may not be desirable. That is, certain ones are aggressive, corrosive or biotoxic; others are sensitive to light, heat and oxidation; some are hydrophilic, transparent, slimy, etc. To eliminate the undesirable properties, the surfaces of improper materials need to be modified. This resulted in the appearance of a specialized sub-discipline of materials science called surface engineering, which modifies the surfaces of solid materials in various ways. In a broad sense, surface engineering has applications in chemistry, and mechanical and electrical engineering (especially in relation to semiconductor manufacturing) [1], which is beyond the scope of this research.
Generally, surface modifications can be broadly divided into three categories: (1) depositing a material onto a surface with desired function and properties; (2) transforming an existing surface into a more desirable composition, structure or morphology; (3) partially removing material from an existing surface to create a specific topography [2]. As can be seen from the list of the options, the first two categories involve the application of surface deposits (coatings, films and layers) to solve problems in traditional forms. Regarding biomaterials, their properties are likely to be important when they are implanted in the human body. That is, in the case of artificial bone grafts, synthetic materials used in vivo must have appropriate properties, both surface and bulk, to meet the dual requirements of biocompatibility and application-specific mechanical properties. That is why cytotoxic, genotoxic, allergic, neurotoxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic factors are considered when evaluating the biomedical properties of orthopedic implant materials [2]. To meet all these requirements, the surfaces of bioincompatible materials can be modified with appropriate deposits (coatings, films and layers) to create favorable surface conditions for adsorption of proteins from biological fluids and to promote cell–extracellular matrix interactions and production of growth factors. Otherwise, either fibrous tissue will surround implants made of bioincompatible materials or mechanically weak grafts will not function properly. Both types of defects prolong the healing time. Therefore, diverse surface treatments have been developed to improve the biocompatibility and osteoconductivity of artificial implants [3].
On the other hand, some compounds, such as calcium orthophosphates (abbreviated as CaPO4), are well suited to in vivo applications due to their chemical similarity to the inorganic substances found in mammalian bones and teeth [4][5][6]. However, since all types of CaPO4 are ceramic, they are all mechanically weak (brittle) and cannot be subjected to physiological loads (other than compressive ones) occurring in the human skeleton. For many years, therefore, the clinical applications of CaPO4 alone were largely limited to non-load-bearing areas of the body. However, investigations have continued and researchers have begun to deposit biocompatible CaPO4 on the surface of mechanically strong but biologically inert or biotoxic materials in order to combine the benefits of various materials [7][8]. For example, metal implants are used in artificial joints such as hip joints and artificial tooth roots as sufficient mechanical stability is required. Since no metal alone causes osseointegration, i.e., they do not create a mechanically stable connection between the implant and bone tissue, they are coated with CaPO4 to create osseointegration. However, the problem of osseointegration is not limited to metals. Biodegradable polymers are also generally not bioactive. Therefore, to overcome this disadvantage, the surface of those polymers is also coated with CaPO4 and can be replaced by autogenous bone after implantation, as CaPO4 is involved in the same bone regeneration response as natural bones [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].
However, in order to successfully fulfill the important functions (i.e., bioactive adaptation of biologically inert implants), all types of CaPO4 deposits (coatings, films and layers) must meet a number of requirements. The minimum requirements for HA coatings first appeared in the 1992 US guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [16] and sometime later in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards [17]. Subsequently, the FDA guidelines were updated in 1997 [18] and the ISO standards in 2000 [19], 2008 [20] and 2018 [21]. In addition, there is a 2002 ISO standard for the determination of HA coating adhesion strength [22], which was revised in 2018 [23]. In short, important quality characteristics for CaPO4 deposits include thickness, phase composition, crystallinity, Ca/P ratio, microstructure, porosity, surface texture and roughness. All these parameters are likely to affect the mechanical properties of CaPO4 deposits such as cohesion, bond strength, tensile strength, shear strength, Young’s modulus, fatigue life and residual stress.

2. Biomedical Applications of CaPO4 Deposits

The first patent for development of thermal sprayed HA deposits on metal implants was issued in 1979 [24]. The results of the first clinical trials were published in 1987 [25]. Shortly thereafter two leading surgeons in the field of orthopedic surgery, Furlong and Osborn, began implanting plasma-spray-deposited HA stems in patients [26]. Other clinicians followed their lead [27][28]. Since then, many scientific publications have been reported on the benefits of CaPO4-coated implants. Summarizing the available information on the biomechanical and biomedical properties of CaPO4-deposited implants, the following data can be claimed. Compared to uncoated controls, deposited CaPO4 improved bone-implant contact [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], initial stability [39], implant fixation [40][41][42][43][44][45] and nanomechanical properties of adjacent bone [46], higher torque values [33][34][45][47] and extrusion strength [48], protecting the interface from wear particles [49], closing small gaps [50][51], reducing ion emissions from metal substrate [52][53][54][55], retarding metal degradation and corrosion [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64], bone growth [65][66][67], remodeling [68][69], osteointegration [70][71][72][73][74][75][76], improving biocompatibility [77], osteoconductivity [29][60][78][79][80][81][82][83][84], osteoinductivity [85], bone immunomodulation [86], osteogenesis [37][45][87][88][89], early bone [44][71][89][90][91] and healing [92] responses, prevention of fibrous tissue formation [93][94], ectopic bone formation [95], osteoblast density [96] and osteoblast proliferation [97], and improvement of the clinical performance of orthopedic hips. Furthermore, the antimicrobial properties of deposited CaPO4 have been detected in several studies [56][96]. Remarkably, to improve osteoinductive properties, biphasic formulations HA + β-TCP were coated with nanosized HA [98][99]. It should be emphasized that all those cases represent a range of positive effects of CaPO4 deposition by different techniques but comparative studies have revealed that these effects are highly dependent on the deposition technique. That is, compared to uncoated controls, electrochemically deposited CaPO4 was found to contribute to bone-implant fixation, while biomimetic deposition had little effect on fixation [100].
As briefly mentioned in Section 5 above, CaPO4 can be deposited as various biocomposites with numerous additives. Among them, drugs, amino acids, and other biologically active compounds such as hormones, peptides, genes, growth factors and DNA are present [101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114]. Antibiotic-containing CaPO4 deposits were found to show significant in vivo improvements in infection prevention when compared to just CaPO4 deposits [106][111][112][113][114]. Similar effects were also seen in Ag-doped deposits [115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126]. These bioactive molecule delivery methods extend the function of CaPO4 deposits to promote new bone formation in orthopedic implants. However, there are still many open questions regarding the incorporation method and optimal release kinetics of antibiotics.
In the case of porous implants, the deposited CaPO4 facilitate bone penetration within the pores [127]. Furthermore, one study concluded that there was significantly less pin loosening in the CaPO4-treated group [128]. Thus, many clinical studies are optimistic about the in vivo performance of CaPO4-stored implants. Nevertheless, for the sake of objectivity, it is also necessary to mention the studies in which no positive effects were found [129][130]. Furthermore, the presence or absence of the positive effects may depend on the deposition method [100][131][132] and the coating supplier [133]. Moreover, the application or non-application of post-deposition treatments also affects the biological response of CaPO4 deposits [134]. These uncertainties may be due to several reasons, including variations in chemical and phase composition, porosity and additives, as well as various surgeon and patient factors that often confound clinical trials.
In biomedical applications, bone grafts are usually much thicker than the CaPO4 deposits applied on them. Thus, the coated implants combine the surface biocompatibility and bioactivity of CaPO4 with the core strength of a strong substrate [135]. Clinical results of coated implants reveal a much longer post-implantation lifetime than uncoated devices and are therefore particularly beneficial for younger patients [136]. Their biomedical properties approach those of bioactive glass-coated implants [137][138].
Among the available CaPO4 compounds, HA seems to be the most popular deposition material, so most of the clinical studies have been performed with HA. Namely, HA coatings as an in vivo fixation system for hip implants have been found to perform well in the short to medium term: 2 years [139], 5 years [140], 6 years [141], 8 years [142][143], 9 to 12 years [144], 10 years [145][146][147], 10 to 13 years [147], 10 to 15.8 years [148], 10 to 17 years [149], 13 to 15 years [150], 15 years [151], 15 to 21 years [152], 16 years [153], 17 years [154], 17 to 25 years [155], 18 years [156], 19 years [157], 25–30 years [158] and 30–35 years [159]. Similar data have been obtained for HA-coated [160][161][162][163][164] and biphasic HA + TCP coated [165] dental implants. Longer-term clinical results are still awaited with great interest. Additional details on this topic can be found in the references [166][167][168][169][170][171].
At the end of this section, it should be emphasized that many in vivo studies on CaPO4 deposits have shown stronger and faster fixations, more bone growth at the interface, etc., but not all types of CaPO4 deposits give the same results [172][173]. Furthermore, negative results should always be kept in mind and the reasons for this should be carefully investigated and understood. Thus, the clinical applications of CaPO4 deposits are still far from faultlessness. The main areas of concern are listed below [174][175][176]:
In vivo degradation and resorption of CaPO4 deposits can lead to a loss of bond strength between the substrate and the coating, which can hinder implant fixation.
Delamination and delamination of deposits can induce the formation of particle debris.
CaPO4 deposited on polymers may also alleviate osteolysis problems by causing increased polymer wear from the acetabular cup.
In addition, in vivo studies are still scarce in the literature. The limitations of such experiments can be attributed to the following reasons:
It is difficult to select an appropriate animal model to simulate the actual mechanical loading and unloading states to which an implant may be subjected in a human environment.
Normally, experiments require the sacrificing of many animals because of the statistical analysis needed to validate the results.
These experiments demand high costs and long clinical trial durations.
The lack of collaboration between materials scientists and biologists has led to a lack of understanding of this interdisciplinary topic.
The use of animals in experiments raises serious ethical issues because of the painful procedures and exposure to poisons that occur during experiments.

References

  1. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_engineering (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  2. Biesiekierski, A.; Wang, J.; Gepreel, M.A.H.; Wen, C. A new look at biomedical Ti-based shape memory alloys. Acta Biomater. 2012, 8, 1661–1669.
  3. Duan, K.; Wang, R. Surface modifications of bone implants through wet chemistry. J. Mater. Chem. 2006, 16, 2309–2321.
  4. LeGeros, R.Z. Calcium Phosphates in Oral Biology and Medicine, Monographs in Oral Science; Myers, H.M., Ed.; Karger: Basel, Switzerland, 1991; Volume 15, 201p.
  5. Dorozhkin, S.V. Calcium Orthophosphates: Applications in Nature, Biology, and Medicine; Pan Stanford: Singapore, 2012; 854p.
  6. Dorozhkin, S.V. Calcium Orthophosphate-Based Bioceramics and Biocomposites; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2016; 405p.
  7. Ong, J.L.; Chan, D.C.N. Hydroxyapatite and their use as coatings in dental implants: A review. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 1999, 28, 667–707.
  8. de Groot, K.; Wolke, J.G.C.; Jansen, J.A. Calcium phosphate coatings for medical implants. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 1998, 212, 137–147.
  9. Onoki, T.; Hashida, T. New method for hydroxyapatite coating of titanium by the hydrothermal hot isostatic pressing technique. Surf. Coat. Tech. 2006, 200, 6801–6807.
  10. Kobayashi, T.; Itoh, S.; Nakamura, S.; Nakamura, M.; Shinomiya, K.; Yamashita, K. Enhanced bone bonding of hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants by electrical polarization. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2007, 82A, 145–151.
  11. Epinette, J.A.M.D.; Geesink, R.G.T. Hydroxyapatite Coated Hip and Knee Arthroplasty; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995; 394p.
  12. Willmann, G. Coating of implants with hydroxyapatite–material connections between bone and metal. Adv. Eng. Mater. 1999, 1, 95–105.
  13. Epinette, J.A.; Manley, M.T. (Eds.) Fifteen Years of Clinical Experience with Hydroxyapatite Coatings in Joint Arthroplasty; Springer: Paris, France, 2004; 452p.
  14. Habibovic, P.; Li, J.; van der Valk, C.M.; Meijer, G.; Layrolle, P.; van Blitterswijk, C.A.; de Groot, K. Biological performance of uncoated and octacalcium phosphate-coated Ti6Al4V. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 23–36.
  15. Hahn, B.D.; Park, D.S.; Choi, J.J.; Ryu, J.; Yoon, W.H.; Kim, K.H.; Park, C.; Kim, H.E. Dense nanostructured hydroxyapatite coating on titanium by aerosol deposition. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2009, 92, 683–687.
  16. Callahan, T.J.; Gantenberg, J.B.; Sands, B.E. Calcium phosphate (Ca-P) coating draft guidance for preparation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions for orthopedic and dental endosseous implants. In Characterization and Performance of Calcium Phosphate Coatings for Implants; Horowitz, E., Parr, J.E., Eds.; ASTM STP 1196: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1994; pp. 185–197.
  17. Implants for Surgery: Coating for Hydroxyapatite Ceramics; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996; pp. 1–8.
  18. 510(K) Information Needed for Hydroxyapatite Coated Orthopedic Implants. March 10, 1995 (revised 2/20/97). Available online: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm080224.htm (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  19. ISO 13779-2:2000; Implants for Surgery—Hydroxyapatite—Part 2: Coatings of Hydroxyapatite. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/26841.html (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  20. ISO 13779-2:2008; Implants for Surgery—Hydroxyapatite—Part 2: Coatings of Hydroxyapatite. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/43827.html (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  21. ISO 13779-2:2018; Implants for Surgery—Hydroxyapatite—Part 2: Thermally Sprayed Coatings of Hydroxyapatite. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/64617.html (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  22. ISO 13779-4:2002; Implants for Surgery—Hydroxyapatite—Part 4: Determination of Coating Adhesion Strength. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/30723.html (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  23. ISO 13779-4:2018; Implants for Surgery—Hydroxyapatite—Part 4: Determination of Coating Adhesion Strength. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/64619.html (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  24. Aoyagi, M.; Hayashi, M.; Yoshida, Y.; Yao, Y. Implants for Bones, Joints and Tooth Roots. U.S. Patent US4146936, 3 April 1979.
  25. Geesink, R.G.T.; de Groot, K.; Klein, C.P.A.T. Chemical implant fixation using hydroxyl-apatite coatings. The development of a human total hip prosthesis for chemical fixation to bone using hydroxyl-apatite coatings on titanium substrates. Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res. 1987, 225, 147–170.
  26. Furlong, R.J.; Osborn, J.F. Fixation of hip prostheses by hydroxyapatite ceramic coating. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1991, 73, 741–745.
  27. Bauer, T.W.; Geesink, R.G.T.; Zimmerman, R.; McMahon, J.T. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. Histological analysis of components retrieved at autopsy. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1991, 73, 1439–1452.
  28. Buma, P.; Gardeniers, J.W. Tissue reactions around a hydroxyapatite-coated hip prostheses: Case report of a retrieveal specimen. J. Arthroplast. 1995, 10, 389–395.
  29. Hahn, B.D.; Park, D.S.; Choi, J.J.; Ryu, J.; Yoon, W.H.; Choi, J.H.; Kim, J.W.; Ahn, C.W.; Kim, H.E.; Yoon, B.H.; et al. Osteoconductive hydroxyapatite coated PEEK for spinal fusion surgery. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2013, 283, 6–11.
  30. Ueda, K.; Kawasaki, Y.; Narushima, T.; Goto, T.; Kurihara, J.; Nakagawa, H.; Kawamura, H.; Taira, M. Calcium phosphate films with/without heat treatments fabricated using RF magnetron sputtering. J. Biomech. Sci. Eng. 2009, 4, 392–403.
  31. Gross, K.A.; Berndt, C.C. In vitro testing of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 1994, 5, 219–224.
  32. Thomas, K.A.; Cook, C.D.; Ray, R.J.; Jarcho, M. Biologic response to hydroxylapatite coated titanium hips. J. Arthroplast. 1989, 4, 43–53.
  33. Park, Y.S.; Yi, K.Y.; Lee, I.S.; Han, C.H.; Jung, Y.C. The effects of ion beam-assisted deposition of hydroxyapatite on the grit-blasted surface of endosseous implants in rabbit tibiae. Int. J. Oral Max. Impl. 2005, 20, 31–38.
  34. Junker, R.; Manders, P.J.D.; Wolke, J.G.C.; Borisov, Y.; Jansen, J.A. Bone-supportive behavior of microplasma-sprayed CaP-coated implants: Mechanical and histological outcome in the goat. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2010, 21, 189–200.
  35. Suzuki, M.; Calasans-Maia, M.D.; Marin, C.; Granato, R.; Gil, J.N.; Granjeiro, J.M.; Coelho, P.G. Effect of surface modifications on early bone healing around plateau root form implants: An experimental study in rabbits. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 68, 1631–1638.
  36. Barkarmo, S.; Wennerberg, A.; Hoffman, M.; Kjellin, P.; Breding, K.; Handa, P.; Stenport, V. Nano-hydroxyapatite-coated PEEK implants: A pilot study in rabbit bone. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2013, 101A, 465–471.
  37. Alghamdi, H.S.; Bosco, R.; van den Beucken, J.J.J.P.; Walboomers, X.F.; Jansen, J.A. Osteogenicity of titanium implants coated with calcium phosphate or collagen type-I in osteoporotic rats. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 3747–3757.
  38. Dong, Y.; Yang, J.; Wang, L.; Ma, X.; Huang, Y.; Qiu, Z.; Cui, F. An improved biofunction of titanium for keratoprosthesis by hydroxyapatite-coating. J. Biomater. Appl. 2014, 28, 990–997.
  39. Race, A.; Heffernan, C.D.; Sharkey, P.F. The addition of a hydroxyapatite coating changes the immediate postoperative stability of a plasma-sprayed femoral stem. J. Arthroplast. 2011, 26, 289–295.
  40. Yang, C.Y.; Wang, B.C.; Lee, T.M.; Chang, E.; Chang, G.L. Intramedullary implant of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating: An interface study. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1997, 36, 39–48.
  41. Søballe, K.; Hansen, E.S.; Brockstedt-Rasmussen, H.B.; Bünger, C. Hydroxyapatite coating converts fibrous tissue to bone around loaded implants. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1993, 75, 270–278.
  42. Daugaard, H.; Elmengaard, B.; Bechtold, J.E.; Jensen, T.; Soballe, K. The effect on bone growth enhancement of implant coatings with hydroxyapatite and collagen deposited electrochemically and by plasma spray. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2010, 92A, 913–921.
  43. Mutsuzaki, H.; Sogo, Y.; Oyane, A.; Ito, A. Improved bonding of partially osteomyelitic bone to titanium pins owing to biomimetic coating of apatite. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 15, 24366–24379.
  44. Yokota, S.; Nishiwaki, N.; Ueda, K.; Narushima, T.; Kawamura, H.; Takahashi, T. Evaluation of thin amorphous calcium phosphate coatings on titanium dental implants deposited using magnetron sputtering. Implant. Dent. 2014, 23, 343–350.
  45. Thorfve, A.; Lindahl, C.; Xia, W.; Igawa, K.; Lindahl, A.; Thomsen, P.; Palmquist, A.; Tengvall, P. Hydroxyapatite coating affects the Wnt signaling pathway during peri-implant healing in vivo. Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 1451–1462.
  46. Jimbo, R.; Coelho, P.G.; Bryington, M.; Baldassarri, M.; Tovar, N.; Currie, F.; Hayashi, M.; Janal, M.N.; Andersson, M.; Ono, D.; et al. Nano hydroxyapatite-coated implants improve bone nanomechanical properties. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 1172–1177.
  47. Granato, R.; Marin, C.; Suzuki, M.; Gil, J.N.; Janal, M.N.; Coelho, P.G. Biomechanical and histomorphometric evaluation of a thin ion beam bioceramic deposition on plateau root form implants: An experimental study in dogs. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2009, 90B, 396–403.
  48. Ozeki, K.; Yuhta, T.; Aoki, H.; Nishimura, I.; Fukui, Y. Push-out strength of hydroxyapatite coated by sputtering technique in bone. Bio-Med. Mater. Eng. 2001, 11, 63–68.
  49. Rahbek, O.; Overgaard, S.; Lind, M.; Bendix, K.; Bunger, C.; Soballe, K. Sealing effect of hydroxyapatite coating on peri-implant migration of particles. An experimental study in dogs. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2001, 83, 441–447.
  50. Søballe, K.; Hansen, E.S.; Brockstedt-Rasmussen, H.B.; Hjortdal, V.E.; Juhl, G.I.; Pedersen, C.M.; Hvid, I.; Bünger, C. Gap healing enhanced by hydroxyapatite coatings in dogs. Clin. Orthop. 1991, 272, 300–307.
  51. Stephenson, P.K.; Freeman, M.A.R.; Revell, P.A.; Germain, J.; Tuke, M.; Pirie, C.J. The effect of hydroxyapatite coating on growth of bone into cavities in an implant. J. Arthroplast. 1991, 6, 51–58.
  52. Surmenev, R.A.; Ryabtseva, M.A.; Shesterikov, E.V.; Pichugin, V.F.; Peitsch, T.; Epple, M. The release of nickel from nickel-titanium (NiTi) is strongly reduced by a sub-micrometer thin layer of calcium phosphate deposited by RF-magnetron sputtering. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2010, 21, 1233–1239.
  53. Ducheyne, P.; Healy, K.E. The effect of plasma-sprayed calcium phosphate ceramic coatings on the metal ion release from porous titanium and cobalt-chromium alloys. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1988, 22, 1137–1163.
  54. Sousa, S.R.; Barbosa, M.A. Effect of hydroxyapatite thickness on metal ion release from Ti6Al4V substrates. Biomaterials 1996, 17, 397–404.
  55. Ozeki, K.; Yuhta, T.; Aoki, H.; Fukui, Y. Inhibition of Ni release from NiTi alloy by hydroxyapatite, alumina, and titanium sputtered coatings. Bio-Med. Mater. Eng. 2003, 13, 271–279.
  56. El-Rab, S.M.F.G.; Fadl-allah, S.A.; Montser, A.A. Improvement in antibacterial properties of Ti by electrodeposition of biomimetic Ca–P apatite coat on anodized titania. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2012, 261, 1–7.
  57. Dorozhkin, S.V. Calcium orthophosphate coatings on magnesium and its biodegradable alloys. Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 2919–2934.
  58. Gopi, D.; Sherif, E.S.M.; Rajeswari, D.; Kavitha, L.; Pramod, R.; Dwivedi, J.; Polaki, S.R. Evaluation of the mechanical and corrosion protection performance of electrodeposited hydroxyapatite on the high energy electron beam treated titanium alloy. J. Alloys Compd. 2014, 616, 498–504.
  59. Gopi, D.; Karthika, A.; Rajeswari, D.; Kavitha, L.; Pramod, R.; Dwivedi, J. Investigation on corrosion protection and mechanical performance of minerals substituted hydroxyapatite coating on HELCDEB-treated titanium using pulsed electrodeposition method. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 34751–34759.
  60. Metikoš-Huković, M.; Tkalacec, E.; Kwokal, A.; Piljac, J. An in vitro study of Ti and Ti-alloys coated with sol-gel derived hydroxyapatite coatings. Surf. Coat. Tech. 2003, 165, 40–50.
  61. Yang, J.X.; Jiao, Y.P.; Cui, F.Z.; Lee, I.S.; Yin, Q.S.; Zhang, Y. Modification of degradation behavior of magnesium alloy by IBAD coating of calcium phosphate. Surf. Coat. Tech. 2008, 202, 5733–5736.
  62. Cheng, X.; Roscoe, S.G. Corrosion behavior of titanium in the presence of calcium phosphate and serum proteins. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 7350–7356.
  63. Zhang, Y.J.; Xi, X.H.; Jia, H.L.; Dan, Z. Controlling the biodegradation rate of AZ31 with biomimetic apatite coating. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 821–822, 1047–1050.
  64. Cui, W.; Beniash, E.; Gawalt, E.; Xu, Z.; Sfeir, C. Biomimetic coating of magnesium alloy for enhanced corrosion resistance and calcium phosphate deposition. Acta Biomater. 2013, 9, 8650–8659.
  65. Cook, S.D.; Thomas, K.A.; Dalton, J.E.; Volkman, T.K.; Whitecloud III, T.S.; Kay, J.F. Hydroxylapatite coating of porous implants improves bone ingrowth and interface attachment strength. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1992, 26, 989–1001.
  66. Wang, C.; Gross, K.A.; Anderson, G.I.; Dunstan, C.R.; Carbone, A.; Berger, G.; Ploska, U.; Zreiqat, H. Bone growth is enhanced by novel bioceramic coatings on Ti alloy implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2009, 90A, 419–428.
  67. Barkarmo, S.; Andersson, M.; Currie, F.; Kjellin, P.; Jimbo, R.; Johansson, C.; Stenport, V. Enhanced bone healing around nanohydroxyapatite-coated polyetheretherketone implants: An experimental study in rabbit bone. J. Biomater. Appl. 2014, 29, 737–747.
  68. Pilliar, R.M.; Deporter, D.A.; Watson, P.A.; Pharoah, M.; Chipman, M.; Valiquette, N.; Carter, S.; de Groot, K. The effect of partial coating with hydroxyapatite on bone remodeling in relation to porous-coated titanium-alloy dental implants in the dog. J. Dent. Res. 1991, 70, 1338–1345.
  69. Yoon, H.J.; Song, J.E.; Um, Y.J.; Chae, G.J.; Chung, S.M.; Lee, I.S.; Jung, U.W.; Kim, C.S.; Choi, S.H. Effects of calcium phosphate coating to SLA surface implants by the ion-beam-assisted deposition method on self-contained coronal defect healing in dogs. Biomed. Mater. 2009, 4, 044107.
  70. Lakstein, D.; Kopelovitch, W.; Barkay, Z.; Bahaa, M.; Hendel, D.; Eliaz, N. Enhanced osseointegration of grit-blasted, NaOH-treated and electrochemically hydroxyapatite-coated Ti–6Al–4V implants in rabbits. Acta Biomater. 2009, 5, 2258–2269.
  71. Ballo, A.M.; Xia, W.; Palmquist, A.; Lindahl, C.; Emanuelsson, L.; Lausmaa, J.; Engqvist, H.; Thomsen, P. Bone tissue reactions to biomimetic ion-substituted apatite surfaces on titanium implants. J. R. Soc. Interface 2012, 9, 1615–1624.
  72. Lee, J.H.; Kim, S.G.; Lim, S.C. Histomorphometric study of bone reactions with different hydroxyapatite coating thickness on dental implants in dogs. Thin Solid Films 2011, 519, 4618–4622.
  73. Bigi, A.; Fini, M.; Bracci, B.; Boanini, E.; Torricelli, P.; Giavaresi, G.; Aldini, N.N.; Facchini, A.; Sbaiz, F.; Giardino, R. The response of bone to nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite-coated Ti13Nb11Zr alloy in an animal model. Biomaterials 2008, 29, 1730–1736.
  74. Park, D.S.; Kim, I.S.; Kim, H.; Chou, A.H.K.; Hahn, B.D.; Li, L.H.; Hwang, S.J. Improved biocompatibility of hydroxyapatite thin film prepared by aerosol deposition. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2010, 94B, 353–358.
  75. Alghamdi, H.S.; Cuijpers, V.M.J.I.; Wolke, J.G.C.; van den Beucken, J.J.J.P.; Jansen, J.A. Calcium-phosphate-coated oral implants promote osseointegration in osteoporosis. J. Dent. Res. 2013, 92, 982–988.
  76. Deplaine, H.; Lebourg, M.; Ripalda, P.; Vidaurre, A.; Sanz-Ramos, P.; Mora, G.; Prósper, F.; Ochoa, I.; Doblaré, M.; Ribelles, J.L.G.; et al. Biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating on pore walls improves osteointegration of poly(L-lactic acid) scaffolds. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2013, 101B, 173–186.
  77. Luo, R.; Liu, Z.; Yan, F.; Kong, Y.; Zhang, Y. The biocompatibility of hydroxyapatite film deposition on micro-arc oxidation Ti6Al4V alloy. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2013, 266, 57–61.
  78. Mendes, V.C.; Moineddin, R.; Davies, J.E. Discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystalline deposition enhances osteoconduction on titanium-based implant surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2009, 90A, 577–585.
  79. Nguyen, H.Q.; Deporter, D.A.; Pilliar, R.M.; Valiquette, N.; Yakubovich, R. The effect of sol-gel-formed calcium phosphate coatings on bone ingrowth and osteoconductivity of porous-surfaced Ti alloy implants. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 865–876.
  80. Gan, L.; Wang, J.; Tache, A.; Valiquette, N.; Deporter, D.; Pilliar, R. Calcium phosphate sol-gel-derived thin films on porous-surfaced implants for enhanced osteoconductivity: Part II: Short-term in vivo studies. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 5313–5321.
  81. Geesink, R.G.T. Osteoconductive coating for total joint arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res. 2002, 395, 53–65.
  82. Wu, J.; Guo, Y.Q.; Yin, G.F.; Chen, H.Q.; Kang, Y. Induction of osteoconductivity by BMP-2 gene modification of mesenchymal stem cells combined with plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2008, 255, 336–339.
  83. Cao, N.; Dong, J.; Wang, Q.; Ma, Q.; Xue, C.; Li, M. An experimental bone defect healing with hydroxyapatite coating plasma sprayed on carbon/carbon composite implants. Surf. Coat. Tech. 2010, 205, 1150–1156.
  84. Hirota, M.; Hayakawa, T.; Yoshinari, M.; Ametani, A.; Shima, T.; Monden, Y.; Ozawa, T.; Sato, M.; Koyama, C.; Tamai, N.; et al. Hydroxyapatite coating for titanium fibre mesh scaffold enhances osteoblast activity and bone tissue formation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 41, 1304–1309.
  85. Ripamonti, U.; Roden, L.C.; Renton, L.F. Osteoinductive hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 3813–3823.
  86. Jiang, J.; Liu, W.; Xiong, Z.; Hu, Y.; Xiao, J. Effects of biomimetic hydroxyapatite coatings on osteoimmunomodulation. Biomater. Adv. 2022, 134, 112640.
  87. Yoshinari, M.; Oda, Y.; Inoue, T.; Matsuzaka, K.; Shimono, M. Bone response to calcium phosphate-coated and bisphosphonate-immobilized titanium implants. Biomaterials 2002, 23, 2879–2885.
  88. Barrere, F.; van der Valk, C.M.; Dalmeijer, R.A.J.; Meijer, G.; van Blitterswijk, C.A.; de Groot, K.; Layrolle, P. Osteogenecity of octacalcium phosphate coatings applied on porous metal implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2003, 66A, 779–788.
  89. Surmenev, R.A.; Surmeneva, M.A.; Ivanova, A.A. Significance of calcium phosphate coatings for the enhancement of new bone osteogenesis—A review. Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 557–579.
  90. Yang, C.Y.; Wang, B.C.; Chang, W.J.; Chang, E.; Wu, J.D. Mechanical and histological evaluations of cobalt-chromium alloy and hydroxyapatite plasma-sprayed coatings in bone. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 1996, 7, 167–174.
  91. Mohammadi, S.; Esposito, M.; Hall, J.; Emanuelsson, L.; Krozer, A.; Thomsen, P. Short-term bone response to titanium implants coated with thin radiofrequent magnetron-sputtered hydroxyapatite in rabbits. Clin. Implant Dent. Rel. Res. 2003, 5, 241–253.
  92. Vercaigne, S.; Wolke, J.G.C.; Naert, I.; Jansen, J.A. A histological evaluation of TiO2-gritblasted and Ca-P magnetron sputter coated implants placed into the trabecular bone of the goat: Part 2. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2000, 11, 314–324.
  93. Layrolle, P. 1.16 Calcium phosphate coatings. In Comprehensive Biomaterials II; Ducheyne, P., Healy, K., Hutmacher, D.W., Grainger, D.W., Kirkpatrick, C.J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 360–367.
  94. Dostálová, T.; Himmlová, L.; Jélinek, M.; Grivas, C. Osseointegration of loaded dental implant with KrF laser hydroxylapatite films on Ti6Al4V alloy by minipigs. J. Biomed. Opt. 2001, 6, 239–243.
  95. Vaquette, C.; Ivanovski, S.; Hamlet, S.M.; Hutmacher, D.W. Effect of culture conditions and calcium phosphate coating on ectopic bone formation. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 5538–5551.
  96. Mathew, D.; Bhardwaj, G.; Wang, Q.; Sun, L.; Ercan, B.; Geetha, M.; Webster, T.J. Decreased Staphylococcus aureus and increased osteoblast density on nanostructured electrophoretic-deposited hydroxyapatite on titanium without the use of pharmaceuticals. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 1775–1781.
  97. Le, V.Q.; Cochis, A.; Rimondini, L.; Pourroy, G.; Stanic, V.; Palkowski, H.; Carrado, A. Biomimetic calcium–phosphates produced by an autocatalytic route on stainless steel 316 L and bio-inert polyolefin. RSC Adv. 2013, 3, 11255–11262.
  98. Hu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, L.; Liu, J.; Lu, H. Effect of nano-hydroxyapatite coating on the osteoinductivity of porous biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2014, 15, 114.
  99. Hu, J.; Yang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, K.; Lu, H. Porous biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics coated with nano-hydroxyapatite and seeded with mesenchymal stem cells for reconstruction of radius segmental defects in rabbits. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2015, 26, 257.
  100. Yang, G.L.; He, F.M.; Hu, J.A.; Wang, X.X.; Zhao, S.F. Biomechanical comparison of biomimetically and electrochemically deposited hydroxyapatite-coated porous titanium implants. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 68, 420–427.
  101. Rajesh, P.; Mohan, N.; Yokogawa, Y.; Varma, H. Pulsed laser deposition of hydroxyapatite on nanostructured titanium towards drug eluting implants. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2013, 33, 2899–2904.
  102. Prosolov, K.A.; Komarova, E.G.; Kazantseva, E.A.; Lozhkomoev, A.S.; Kazantsev, S.O.; Bakina, O.V.; Mishina, M.V.; Zima, A.P.; Krivoshchekov, S.V.; Khlusov, I.A.; et al. UMAOH calcium phosphate coatings designed for drug delivery: Vancomycin, 5-fluorouracil, interferon α-2b case. Materials 2022, 15, 4643.
  103. Bir, F.; Khireddine, H.; Touati, A.; Sidane, D.; Yala, S.; Oudadesse, H. Electrochemical depositions of fluorohydroxyapatite doped by Cu2+, Zn2+, Ag+ on stainless steel substrates. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2012, 258, 7021–7030.
  104. Zhou, H.; Hou, S.; Zhangd, M.; Yang, M.; Deng, L.; Xiong, X.; Ni, X. Deposition of calcium phosphate coatings using condensed phosphates (P2O74- and P3O105-) as phosphate source through induction heating. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 69, 337–342.
  105. Stigter, M.; Bezemer, J.; de Groot, K.; Layrolle, P. Incorporation of different antibiotics into carbonated hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium implants, release and antibiotic efficacy. J. Control. Release 2004, 99, 127–137.
  106. Alt, V.; Bitschnau, A.; Osterling, J.; Sewing, A.; Meyer, C.; Kraus, R.; Meissner, S.A.; Wenisch, S.; Domann, E.; Schnettler, R. The effects of combined gentamicin-hydroxyapatite coating for cementless joint prostheses on the reduction of infection rates in a rabbit infection prophylaxis model. Biomaterials 2006, 27, 4627–4634.
  107. Luong, L.N.; McFalls, K.M.; Kohn, D.H. Gene delivery via DNA incorporation within a biomimetic apatite coating. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 6996–7004.
  108. Choi, S.; Murphy, W.L. Sustained plasmid DNA release from dissolving mineral coatings. Acta Biomater. 2010, 6, 3426–3435.
  109. Saran, N.; Zhang, R.; Turcotte, R.E. Osteogenic protein-1 delivered by hydroxyapatite-coated implants improves bone ingrowth in extracortical bone bridging. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2011, 469, 1470–1478.
  110. Majid, K.; Tseng, M.D.; Baker, K.C.; Reyes-Trocchia, A.; Herkowitz, H.N. Biomimetic calcium phosphate coatings as bone morphogenetic protein delivery systems in spinal fusion. Spine J. 2011, 11, 560–567.
  111. Bastari, K.; Arshath, M.; Ng, Z.H.M.; Chia, J.H.; Yow, Z.X.D.; Sana, B.; Tan, M.F.C.; Lim, S.; Loo, S.C.J. A controlled release of antibiotics from calcium phosphate-coated poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) particles and their in vitro efficacy against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2014, 25, 747–757.
  112. Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Jin, X.; Fan, C.; Ye, H.; Ou, M.; Lv, L.; Wu, G.; Zhou, Y. Bi-functionalization of a calcium phosphate-coated titanium surface with slow-release simvastatin and metronidazole to provide antibacterial activities and pro-osteodifferentiation capabilities. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e97741.
  113. Lin, X.; Chen, J.; Liao, Y.; Pathak, J.L.; Li, H.; Liu, Y. Biomimetic calcium phosphate coating as a drug delivery vehicle for bone tissue engineering: A mini-review. Coatings 2020, 10, 1118.
  114. Vidal, E.; Guillem-Marti, J.; Ginebra, M.P.; Combes, C.; Rupérez, E.; Rodriguez, D. Multifunctional homogeneous calcium phosphate coatings: Toward antibacterial and cell adhesive titanium scaffolds. Surf. Coat. Tech. 2021, 405, 126557.
  115. Chen, W.; Oh, S.; Ong, A.P.; Oh, N.; Liu, Y.; Courtney, H.S.; Appleford, M.; Ong, J.L. Antibacterial and osteogenic properties of silver-containing hydroxyapatite coatings produced using a sol gel process. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2007, 82A, 899–906.
  116. Qu, J.; Lu, X.; Li, D.; Ding, Y.; Leng, Y.; Weng, J.; Qu, S.; Feng, B.; Watari, F. Silver/hydroxyapatite composite coatings on porous titanium surfaces by sol-gel method. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2011, 97B, 40–48.
  117. Furko, M.; Balázsi, C. Morphological, chemical, and biological investigation of ionic substituted, pulse current deposited calcium phosphate coatings. Materials 2020, 13, 4690.
  118. Eraković, S.; Janković, A.; Veljović, D.; Palcevskis, E.; Mitrić, M.; Stevanović, T.; Janaćković, D.; Miskovic-Stankovic, V. Corrosion stability and bioactivity in simulated body fluid of silver/hydroxyapatite and silver/hydroxyapatite/lignin coatings on titanium obtained by electrophoretic deposition. J. Phys. Chem. B 2013, 117, 1633–1643.
  119. Mirzaee, M.; Vaezi, M.; Palizdar, Y. Synthesis and characterization of silver doped hydroxyapatite nanocomposite coatings and evaluation of their antibacterial and corrosion resistance properties in simulated body fluid. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 69, 675–684.
  120. Chen, W.; Liu, Y.; Courtney, H.S.; Bettenga, M.; Agrawal, C.M.; Bumgardner, J.D.; Ong, J.L. In vitro anti-bacterial and biological properties of magnetron co-sputtered silver-containing hydroxyapatite coating. Biomaterials 2006, 27, 5512–5517.
  121. Syromotina, D.S.; Surmeneva, M.A.; Gorodzha, S.N.; Pichugin, V.F.; Ivanova, A.A.; Grubova, I.Y.; Kravchuk, K.S.; Gogolinskii, K.V.; Prymak, O.; Epple, M.; et al. Physical-mechanical characteristics of RF magnetron sputter-deposited coatings based on silver-doped hydroxyapatite. Russ. Phys. J. 2014, 56, 1198–1205.
  122. Ivanova, A.A.; Surmeneva, M.A.; Tyurin, A.I.; Pirozhkova, T.S.; Shuvarin, I.A.; Prymak, O.; Epple, M.; Chaikina, M.V.; Surmenev, R.A. Fabrication and physico-mechanical properties of thin magnetron sputter deposited silver-containing hydroxyapatite films. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 360, 929–935.
  123. Noda, I.; Miyaji, F.; Ando, Y.; Miyamoto, H.; Shimazaki, T.; Yonekura, Y.; Miyazaki, M.; Mawatari, M.; Hotokebuchi, T. Development of novel thermal sprayed antibacterial coating and evaluation of release properties of silver ions. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2009, 89B, 456–465.
  124. Fielding, G.A.; Roy, M.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Bose, S. Antibacterial and biological characteristics of silver containing and strontium doped plasma sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings. Acta Biomater. 2012, 8, 3144–3152.
  125. Guimond-Lischer, S.; Ren, Q.; Braissant, O.; Gruner, P.; Wampfler, B.; Maniura-Weber, K. Vacuum plasma sprayed coatings using ionic silver doped hydroxyapatite powder to prevent bacterial infection of bone implants. Biointerphases 2016, 11, 011012.
  126. Sanpo, N.; Tan, M.L.; Cheang, P.; Khor, K.A. Antibacterial property of cold-sprayed HA-Ag/PEEK coating. J. Therm. Spray Tech. 2009, 18, 10–15.
  127. Dorozhkin, S.V. Calcium orthophosphates (CaPO4): Occurrence and properties. Prog. Biomater. 2016, 5, 9–70.
  128. Saithna, A. The influence of hydroxyapatite coating of external fixator pins on pin loosening and pin track infection: A systematic review. Injury 2010, 41, 128–132.
  129. Tieanboon, P.; Jaruwangsanti, N.; Kiartmanakul, S. Efficacy of hydroxyapatite in pedicular screw fixation in canine spinal vertebra. Asian Biomed. 2009, 3, 177–181.
  130. Coelho, P.G.; Cardaropoli, G.; Suzuki, M.; Lemons, J.E. Early healing of nanothickness bioceramic coatings on dental implants. An experimental study in dogs. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2009, 88B, 387–393.
  131. Hulshoff, J.E.G.; van Dijk, K.; van Der Waerden, J.P.C.M.; Wolke, J.G.C.; Kalk, W.; Jansen, J.A. Evaluation of plasma-spray and magnetron-sputter Ca-P-coated implants: An in vivo experiment using rabbits. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1996, 31, 329–337.
  132. Hulshoff, J.E.G.; Hayakawa, T.; van Dijk, K.; Leijdekkers-Govers, A.F.M.; van der Waerden, J.P.C.M.; Jansen, J.A. Mechanical and histologic evaluation of Ca-P plasma-spray and magnetron sputter-coated implants in trabecular bone of the goat. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1997, 36, 75–83.
  133. Dalton, J.E.; Cook, S.D. In vivo mechanical and histological characteristics of HA-coated implants vary with coating vendor. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1995, 29, 239–245.
  134. Yang, C.Y.; Yang, C.W.; Chen, L.R.; Wu, M.C.; Lui, T.S.; Kuo, A.; Lee, T.M. Effect of vacuum post-heat treatment of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings on their in vitro and in vivo biological responses. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 2009, 29, 296–302.
  135. Hench, L.L. Bioceramics: From concept to clinic. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1991, 74, 1487–1510.
  136. Capello, W.D.; D’Antonio, J.A.; Feinberg, J.R.; Manley, M.T. Hydroxyapatite-coated total hip femoral components in patients less than fifty years old: Clinical and radiographic results after five to eight years of follow-up. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1997, 79, 1023–1029.
  137. Wheeler, D.L.; Montfort, M.J.; McLoughlin, S.W. Differential healing response of bone adjacent to porous implants coated with hydroxyapatite and 45S5 bioactive glass. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2001, 55, 603–612.
  138. Mistry, S.; Kundu, D.; Datta, S.; Basu, D. Comparison of bioactive glass coated and hydroxyapatite coated titanium dental implants in the human jaw bone. Aust. Dent. J. 2011, 56, 68–75.
  139. Geesink, R.G.T. Hydroxyapatite-coated total hip prostheses; two-year clinical and roentgenographic results of 100 cases. Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res. 1990, 261, 39–58.
  140. Makani, A.; Kim, T.W.B.; Kamath, A.F.; Garino, J.P.; Lee, G.C. Outcomes of long tapered hydroxyapatite-coated stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2014, 29, 827–830.
  141. Geesink, R.G.T.; Hoefnagels, N.H.M. Six-year results of hydroxyapatite-coated total hip replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1995, 77, 534–547.
  142. Wheeler, S.L. Eight-year clinical retrospective study of titanium plasma-sprayed and hydroxyapatite-coated cylinder implants. Int. J. Oral Max. Impl. 1996, 11, 340–350.
  143. Chang, J.K.; Chen, C.H.; Huang, K.Y.; Wang, G.J. Eight-year results of hydroxyapatite-coated hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2006, 21, 541–546.
  144. MaNally, S.A.; Shepperd, H.A.N.; Mann, C.V.; Walczak, J.P. The results at nine to twelve years of the use of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2000, 82B, 378–382.
  145. Oosterbos, C.J.M.; Rahmy, A.I.A.; Tonino, A.J.; Witpeerd, W. High survival rate of hydroxyapatite-coated hip prostheses 100 consecutive hips followed for 10 years. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2004, 75, 127–133.
  146. Trisi, P.; Keith, D.J.; Rocco, S. Human histologic and histomorphometric analyses of hydroxyapatite-coated implants after 10 years of function: A case report. Int. J. Oral Max. Impl. 2005, 20, 124–130.
  147. Lecuire, F.; Berard, J.B.; Martres, S. Minimum 10-year follow-up results of ALPINA cementless hydroxyapatite-coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2014, 24, 385–394.
  148. Griffiths, J.T.; Roumeliotis, L.; Elson, D.W.; Borton, Z.M.; Cheung, S.; Stranks, G.J. Long term performance of an uncemented, proximally hydroxyapatite coated, double tapered, titanium-alloy femoral stem: Results from 1465 hips at 10 years minimum follow-up. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, 616–622.
  149. Muirhead-Allwood, S.K.; Sandiford, N.; Skinner, J.A.; Hua, J.; Kabir, C.; Walker, P.S. Uncemented custom computer-assisted design and manufacture of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral components: Survival at 10 to 17 years. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2010, 92, 1079–1084.
  150. Shetty, A.A.; Slack, R.; Tindall, A.; James, K.D.; Rand, C. 1 Results of a hydroxyapatite-coated (Furlong) total hip replacement. A 13- to 15-year follow-up. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2005, 87, 1050–1054.
  151. Capello, W.N.; D’Antonio, J.A.; Jaffe, W.L.; Geesink, R.G.; Manley, M.T.; Feinberg, J.R. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral components: 15-year minimum follow up. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006, 453, 75–80.
  152. Rajaratnam, S.S.; Jack, C.; Tavakkolizadeh, A.; George, M.D.; Fletcher, R.J.; Hankins, M.; Shepperd, J.A.N. Long-term results of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral component in total hip replacement: A 15- to 21-year follow-up study. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2008, 90, 27–30.
  153. Buchanan, J.M. 16 year review of hydroxyapatite ceramic coated hip implants—A clinical and histological evaluation. Key Eng. Mater. 2005, 284–286, 1049–1052.
  154. Buchanan, J.M. 17 year review of hydroxyapatite ceramic coated hip implants—A clinical and histological evaluation. Key Eng. Mater. 2006, 309–311, 1341–1344.
  155. Syed, M.A.; Hutt, N.J.; Shah, N.; Edge, A.J. Hydroxyapatite ceramic-coated femoral components in young patients followed up for 17 to 25 years: An update of a previous report. Bone Joint J. 2015, 97B, 749–754.
  156. Batta, V.; Coathup, M.J.; Parratt, M.T.; Pollock, R.C.; Aston, W.J.; Cannon, S.R.; Skinner, J.A.; Briggs, T.W.; Blunn, G.W. Uncemented, custom-made, hydroxyapatite-coated collared distal femoral endoprostheses: Up to 18 years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2014, 96B, 263–269.
  157. Buchanan, J.M.; Goodfellow, S. Nineteen years review of hydroxyapatite ceramic coated hip implants: A clinical and histological evaluation. Key Eng. Mater. 2008, 361–363, 1315–1318.
  158. Jacquot, L.; Bonnin, M.P.; Machenaud, A.; Chouteau, J.; Saffarini, M.; Vidalain, J.P. Clinical and radiographic outcomes at 25–30 years of a hip stem fully coated with hydroxylapatite. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 482–490.
  159. Jacquot, L.; Machenaud, A.; Bonnin, M.P.; Chouteau, J.; Ramos-Pascual, S.; Saffarini, M.; Dubreuil, S.; Vidalain, J.P. Survival and clinical outcomes at 30 to 35 years following primary total hip arthroplasty with a cementless femoral stem fully coated with hydroxyapatite. J. Arthroplast. 2023, 38, 880–885.
  160. Tinsley, D.; Watson, C.J.; Russell, J.L. A comparison of hydroxylapatite coated implant retained fixed and removable mandibular prostheses over 4 to 6 years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2001, 12, 159–166.
  161. Binahmed, A.; Stoykewych, A.; Hussain, A.; Love, B.; Pruthi, V. Long-term follow-up of hydroxyapatite-coated dental implants—A clinical trial. Int. J. Oral Max. Impl. 2007, 22, 963–968.
  162. Iezzi, G.; Scarano, A.; Petrone, G.; Piattelli, A. Two human hydroxyapatite-coated dental implants retrieved after a 14-year loading period: A histologic and histomorphometric case report. J. Periodontol. 2007, 78, 940–947.
  163. Kato, E.; Yamada, M.; Sakurai, K. Retrospective clinical outcome of nanopolymorphic crystalline hydroxyapatite-coated and anodic oxidized titanium implants for 10 years. J. Prosthodontic Res. 2015, 59, 62–70.
  164. van Oirschot, B.A.J.A.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; van den Beucken, J.J.J.P.; Meijer, G.J.; Jansen, J.A.; Junker, R. A systematic review on the long-term success of calcium phosphate plasma-spray-coated dental implants. Odontology 2016, 104, 347–356.
  165. Tabrizi, R.; Sadeghi, H.M.; Ghasemi, K.; Khayati, A.; Jafarian, M. Does biphasic calcium phosphate-coated surface increase the secondary stability in dental implants? A split-mouth study. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2022, 21, 557–561.
  166. Narayanan, R.; Kim, K.H.; Rautray, T.R. Surface Modification of Titanium for Biomaterial Applications; Nova Science: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2010; p. 352.
  167. Paital, S.R.; Dahotre, N.B. Calcium phosphate coatings for bio-implant applications: Materials, performance factors, and methodologies. Mater. Sci. Eng. R 2009, 66, 1–70.
  168. León, B.; Jansen, J.A. (Eds.) Thin Calcium Phosphate Coatings for Medical Implants; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; 326p.
  169. Zhang, S. (Ed.) Hydroxyapatite Coatings for Biomedical Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013; 469p.
  170. Herrera, A.; Mateo, J.; Gil-Albarova, J.; Lobo-Escolar, A.; Ibarz, E.; Gabarre, S.; Más, Y.; Gracia, L. Cementless hydroxyapatite coated hip prostheses. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 386461.
  171. Botterill, J.; Khatkar, H. The role of hydroxyapatite coating in joint replacement surgery—Key considerations. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2022, 29, 101874.
  172. Bral, A.; Mommaerts, M.Y. In vivo biofunctionalization of titanium patient-specific implants with nano hydroxyapatite and other nano calcium phosphate coatings: A systematic review. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2016, 44, 400–412.
  173. Su, Y.; Cockerill, I.; Zheng, Y.; Tang, L.; Qin, Y.X.; Zhu, D. Biofunctionalization of metallic implants by calcium phosphate coatings. Bioact. Mater. 2019, 4, 196–206.
  174. Hulshoff, J.E.G.; van Dijk, K.; van der Waerden, J.P.C.M.; Kalk, W.; Jansen, J.A. A histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of screw-type calciumphosphate (Ca-P) coated implants; an in vivo experiment in maxillary cancellous bone of goats. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 1996, 7, 603–609.
  175. Caulier, H.; van der Waerden, J.P.C.M.; Wolke, J.G.C.; Kalk, W.; Naert, I.; Jansen, J.A. A histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of the application of screw-designed calciumphosphate (Ca-P)-coated implants in the cancellous maxillary bone of the goat. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1997, 35, 19–30.
  176. Caulier, H.; Hayakawa, T.; Naert, I.; van der Waerden, J.P.C.M.; Wolke, J.G.C.; Jansen, J.A. An animal study on the bone behaviour of Ca-P-coated implants: Influence of implant location. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 1997, 8, 531–536.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback