Pre-yield and post-yield shear behavior of the cement-bone interface

Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 370-378

  Mann, K A ^a   Allen, M J ^a   Ayers, D C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BONE; BONE CEMENT; FAILURE (MECHANICAL); FINITE ELEMENT METHOD; HIP PROSTHESES; INTERFACES (MATERIALS); MECHANICAL PROPERTIES; MECHANICAL TESTING; SHEAR STRESS;

ASEPTIC LOOSENING; CEMENT BONE INTERFACE; INTERFACE STRENGTH; POST YIELD SHEAR BEHAVIOR; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

BIOMECHANICS;

BONE CEMENT; POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMUR; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; SHEAR STRESS; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

EID: 0032077696     PISSN: 07360266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100160314     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 1 Balu GR, Noble PC, Alexander JW, Vela VL: The effect of intramedullary reaming on the strength of the cement/bone interface. Trans Orthop Res Soc 19: 797, 1994
2. 2 Bean DJ, Convery FR, Woo SL‐Y, Lieber RL: Regional variation in shear strength of the bone‐polymethylmethacrylate interface. J Arthroplasty 2: 293–298, 1987
3. 3 Bittencourt TN: Computer simulation of linear and nonlinear crack propagation in cementitious materials [Doctoral the‐sis]. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, 1993
4. 4 Boone TJ, Wawrzynek PA, Ingraffea AR: Simulation of the fracture process in rock with application to hydrofracturing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 23: 255–265, 1986
5. 5 Broek D: Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics. Boston. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991
6. 6 Brown TD, Pedersen DR, Radin EL, Rose RM: Global mechanical consequences of reduced cement/bone coupling rigidity in proximal femoral arthroplasty: a three‐dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech 21: 115–129, 1988
7. 7 Bugbee WD, Barrera DL, Lee AC, Convery FR: Variations in shear strength of the bone‐cement interface in the proximal femur. Trans Orthop Res Soc 17: 22, 1992
8. 8 Carter DR, Schwab GH, Spengier DM: Tensile fracture of cancellous bone. Acta Orthop Scand 51: 733–741, 1980
9. 9 Clech JP, Keer LM, Lewis JL: A model of tension and compression cracks with cohesive zone at a bone‐cement interface. J Biomech Eng 107: 175–182, 1985
10. 10 Dohmae Y, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE: Reduction in cement‐bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 236: 214–220, 1988
11. 11 Gardiner RC, Hozack WJ: Failure of the cement‐bone interface: a consequence of strengthening the cement‐prosthesis interface? J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 76: 49–52, 1994
12. 12 Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC: “Modes of failure” of cemented stem‐type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop 141: 17–27, 1979
13. 13 Jasty M, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR, Haire T, Harris WH: Histomorphological studies of the long‐term skeletal responses to well fixed cemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 72: 1220–1229, 1990
14. 14 Ling RSM: The use of a collar and precoating on cemented femoral stems is unnecessary and detrimental. Clin Orthop 285: 73–83, 1992
15. 15 Lotz JC, Gerhart TN, Hayes WC: Mechanical properties of trabecular bone from the proximal femur: a quantitative CT study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 14: 107–114, 1990
16. 16 Mann KA, Bartel DL, Wright TM: The effect of using a plasma‐sprayed stem‐cement interface on stresses in a cemented femoral hip component. Trans Orthop Res Soc 17: 317, 1992
17. 17 Mann KA, Ayers DC, Werner FW, Nicoletta RJ, Fortino MD: Tensile strength of the cement‐bone interface depends on the amount of bone interdigitated with PMMA cement. J Biomech 30: 339–346, 1997
18. 18 Miles AW, Clift SE, Wainwright S, Wood N: An experimental and finite element analysis of the influence of the stemcement interface in total hip arthroplasty In: Advances in Biomaterials, pp 645–650. Ed by G Heimke, U Soltesz, and AJC Lee. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, 1990
19. 19 Rohl L, Larsen E, Linde F, Odgaard A, Jorgensen J: Tensile and compressive properties of cancellous bone. J Biomech 24: 1143–1149, 1991
20. 20 Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ: Trends of mechanical consequences and modeling of a fibrous membrane around femoral hip prostheses. J Biomech 23: 991–1000, 1990
21. 21 Wright TM, Trent PS: Mechanical properties of aramid fiber reinforced acrylic bone cement. J Mater Sci 14: 503–505, 1979