. 2022 Sep 30;33(10):68. doi: 10.1007/s10856-022-06687-y

Table 3.

Summary of test results

Test #	Samples	Biomechanical test results	ED	TIC	SEM
1	Ti Ti + HA Ti + ZrP	Ti+HA vs. Ti: +70% ** Ti+ZrP vs. Ti: −29%	–	–	Coating loss of approx. 5% for the HA surfaces, no loss observed for the ZrP surfaces.
2	Ti Ti + HA Ti + ZrP P P + HA P + ZrP	Ti+HA vs. Ti:+24% Ti+ZrP vs. Ti: −18% P + HA vs. P: + 51% * P + ZrP vs. P: −27% P vs. Ti: +48% *	Ti+HA vs Ti: −45% * Ti+ZrP vs Ti: 0% P + HA vs. P: −65% * P + ZrP vs. P: −26% P vs. Ti: −21%	Ti+HA vs Ti: −31% Ti+ZrP vs Ti:+12% P + HA vs. P: + 12% P + ZrP vs. P: + 3% P vs. Ti: +96% *	Coating loss of approx. 5% for the HA surfaces, no loss observed for the ZrP surfaces.

Test #

Samples

Biomechanical test results

TIC

SEM

Ti + HA

Ti + ZrP

Ti+HA vs. Ti: +70% **

Ti+ZrP vs. Ti: −29%

–

Coating loss of approx. 5% for the HA surfaces, no loss observed for the ZrP surfaces.

Ti + HA

Ti + ZrP

P + HA

P + ZrP

Ti+HA vs. Ti:+24%

Ti+ZrP vs. Ti: −18%

P + HA vs. P: + 51% *

P + ZrP vs. P: −27%

P vs. Ti: +48% *

Ti+HA vs Ti: −45% *

Ti+ZrP vs Ti: 0%

P + HA vs. P: −65% *

P + ZrP vs. P: −26%

P vs. Ti: −21%

Ti+HA vs Ti: −31%

Ti+ZrP vs Ti:+12%

P + HA vs. P: + 12%

P + ZrP vs. P: + 3%

P vs. Ti: +96% *

Coating loss of approx. 5% for the HA surfaces, no loss observed for the ZrP surfaces.

P PEEK. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01