Effect of cement modulus on the shear properties of the bone-cement interface

Biomaterials

Volumn 19, Issue 17, 1998, Pages 1561-1567

  Funk, Michael J ^a   Litsky, Alan S ^a  

^a Orthopaedic BioMaterials Laboratory   (United States)

Author keywords

Bone cement; Bone cement interface; Shear stress

Indexed keywords

BIOMECHANICS; BONE; INTERFACES (MATERIALS); POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATES; SHEAR STRESS; STRESS ANALYSIS;

APPARENT DENSITY; CANCELLOUS BONE;

BONE CEMENT;

BONE CEMENT; CEMENT; POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ARTICLE; BONE DENSITY; BONE STRENGTH; CANCELLOUS BONE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHEAR STRESS; SURFACE PROPERTY;

ANIMALS; BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS; BIOMECHANICS; BONE AND BONES; BONE CEMENTS; CATTLE; METHACRYLATES; OSSEOINTEGRATION; POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE; STRESS, MECHANICAL;

EID: 0032170765     PISSN: 01429612     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00116-6     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. [1] Ashman RB, Rho JY. Elastic modulus of trabecular bone material. J Biomech 1988;21(3):177-81.
2. [2] Behrens JC, Walker PS, Shoji H. Variations in strength and structure of cancellous bone at the knee. J Biomech 1974;7:201-7.
3. [3] Carter DR, Hayes WC. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg 1977;59A: 954-62.
4. [4] Gibson LJ. The mechanical behavior of bone. J Biomech 1985;18(5):317-28.
5. [5] Hodgskinson R, Currey JD. Effects of structural variation on Young's modulus of non-human cancellous bone. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part H 1990;204:43-51.
6. [6] Hodgskinson R, Currey JD. The effect of variation in structure on the Young's modulus of cancellous bone: a comparison of human and non-human material. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part H 1990;204:115-21.
7. [7] Halawa M, Lee AJC, Ling RSM, Vangala SS. The shear strength of trabecular bone from the femur, and some factors affecting the shear strength of the cement-bone interface. Arch Orthop Traumat Surg 1978;92:19-30.
8. [8] Pugh JW, Rose RM, Radin EL. A structural model for the mechanical behavior of trabecular bone. J Biomech 1973; 6:657-70.
9. [9] Saha S, Pal S. Mechanical properties of bone cement: a review. J Biomed Mater Res 1984;18:435-62.
10. [10] Lautenschlager EP, Stupp SI, Keller JC. Structure and properties of acrylic bone cement. In: Ducheyne P, Hastings GW, editors. Functional behavior of orthopedic biomaterials, vol. 2. Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1984:87-119.
11. [11] Litsky AS, Yetkinler DN. Excessive local contact stresses initiate endoprosthesis loosening. Proc Europ Joint Conf ESDA 1992; 1:33-45.
12. [12] Rose RM, Litsky AS. Biomechanical considerations in the loosening of hip replacement prostheses: In: Williams DF, editor. Current perspectives on implantable devices, vol. 1. London: JAI Press, 1989:1-45.
13. [13] Krause WR, Krug W, Miller J. Strength of cement-bone interface. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1982;163:290-9.
14. [14] Macdonald W, Swarts E, Beaver R. Penetration and shear strength of cement-bone interface in vivo. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1993;286:283-8.
15. [15] Mak AF, Lewis JL. Fracture mechanics of the PMMA-cancellous bone interface. Adv Bioeng ASME 1980:209-12.
16. [16] Bugbee WD, Barrera DL, Lee AC, Convery FR. Bone-cement interface strength in the proximal femur: the effect of cementing technique. Trans Orthop Res Soc 1992;17:376.
17. [17] Huiskes R. Stress patterns, failure modes, and bone remodeling. In: Fitzgerald Jr R, editor. Non-cemented total hip arthroplasty. New York: Raven Press, 1988:283-302.
18. [18] Huiskes R. Properties of the stem-cement interface and artificial hip joint failure. In: Lewis JL, Galante JO, editors. The bone-implant interface. Workshop report 1985:86-101.
19. [19] Huiskes R, Nunamaker D. Local stress and bone adaptation around orthopedic implants. Calcif Tissue Int 1984;36:S110-7.
20. [20] Cheal EJ, Spector M, Hayes WC. Role of loads and prosthesis material properties on the mechanics of the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 1992;10:405-22.
21. [21] Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. Trends of mechanical consequences and modeling of a fibrous membrane around femoral hip prosthesis. J Biomech 1990;23:991-1000.
22. [22] Boresi AP, Sidebottom OM. Advanced mechanics of materials, 4th edn. New York: Wiley, 1985:599-642.
23. [23] Erdogan F, Gupta GD. The problem of an elastic stiffener bonded to a half plane. J Appl Mech 1971;38:937-41.
24. [24] Erdogan F, Civelek MB. Contact problem for an elastic reinforcement bonded to an elastic plate. J Appl Mech 1974; 41:1014-8.
25. [25] Albrektsson T. Implant fixation by direct bone anchorage. In: Lewis JL, Galante JO, editors. The bone-implant interface. Workshop report 1985:157-71.
26. [26] Iosipescu N. New accurate procedure for single shear testing of metals. J Metals 1967;2(3):537-66.
27. [27] Walrath DE, Adams DF. The Iosipescu shear test as applied to composite materials. Exp Mech 1983;23:105-10.
28. [28] Adams DF, Walrath DE. Current status of the Iosipescu shear test method. J Compos Mater 1987;21:494-507.
29. [29] Adams DF, Walrath DE. Further development of the Iosipescu shear test method. Exp Mech 1987;27:113-9.
30. [30] Clech JP, Keer LM, Lewis JL. A model of tension and compressions cracks with cohesive zone at bone-cement interface. J Biomech Eng 1985;107:175-82.
31. [31] Litsky AS, Rose RM, Rubin CT, Thrasher EL. A reduced-modulus acrylic bone cement: preliminary results. J Orthop Res 1990;8:623-6.
32. [32] Black J. Orthopaedic biomaterials in research and practice. New York: Churchill Livigstone, 1988:116.