Fracture properties of an acrylic bone cement

Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 21-26

  Bialoblocka Juszczyk, E ^a,b   Baleani, Massimiliano ^a   Cristofolini, L ^a,b   Viceconti, M ^a  

^a RIZZOLI ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Biomaterials; Cement; Fatigue; Fracture properties; Fracture toughness

Indexed keywords

BONE CEMENT; POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CHEMISTRY; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; EQUIPMENT; HARDNESS; LIMB PROSTHESIS; MATERIALS TESTING; MECHANICAL STRESS; POROSITY; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; SURFACE PROPERTY; TENSILE STRENGTH;

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; BONE CEMENTS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; HARDNESS; MATERIALS TESTING; MODELS, STRUCTURAL; POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE; POROSITY; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; STRESS, MECHANICAL; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TENSILE STRENGTH;

EID: 47049103284     PISSN: 1509409X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. KARRHOLM J. et al., Annual Report 2005 - the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 2006.
2. TOPOLESKI L.D. et al., A fractographic analysis of in vivo poly(methyl methacrylate) bone cement failure mechanisms, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1990, 24, 2, 135-154.
3. JASTY M. et al., The initiation of failure in cemented femoral components of hip arthroplasties, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, British Volume, 1991, 73, 4, 551-558.
4. SCHMALZRIED T.P. et al., Quantitative assessment of walking activity after total hip or knee replacement, J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 1998, 80, 1, 54-59.
5. VERDONSCHOT N., HUISKES R., Dynamic creep behavior of acrylic bone cement, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1995, 29, 5, 575-581.
6. JEFFERS J.R. et al., Cement mantle fatigue failure in total hip replacement: experimental and computational testing, J. Biomech, 2007, 40, 7, 1525-1533.
7. CRISTOFOLINI L. et al., Preclinical assessment of the long-term endurance of cemented hip stems. Part 1. Effect of daily activities - a comparison of two load histories, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H], 2007, 221, 6, 569-584.
8. CRISTOFOLINI L. et al., Preclinical assessment of the long-term endurance of cemented hip stems. Part 2. In-vitro and ex-vivo fatigue damage of the cement mantle, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H], 2007, 221, 6, 585-599.
9. MANN K.A. et al., Cement microcracks in thin-mantle regions after in vitro fatigue loading, J. Arthroplasty, 2004, 19, 5, 605-612.
10. HUNG J.P. et al., Computer simulation on fatigue behavior of cemented hip prostheses: a physiological model, Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 2004, 76, 2, 103-113.
11. BRITTON J.R. et al., Mechanical simulation of muscle loading on the proximal femur: analysis of cemented femoral component migration with and without muscle loading, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon), 2003, 18, 7, 637-646.
12. STOLK J. et al., Stair climbing is more detrimental to the cement in hip replacement than walking, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 2002, 405, 294-305.
13. RIES M.D. et al., In vivo behavior of acrylic bone cement in total hip arthroplasty, Biomaterials, 2006, 27, 2, 256-261.
14. LIU C. et al., Some failure modes of four clinical bone cements, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H], 2001, 215, 4, 359-366.
15. VERDONSCHOT N., HUISKES R., Subsidence of the stems due to acrylic cement creep is extremely sensitive to interface friction, J. Biomech., 1996, 29, 12, 1569-1575.
16. CHANG P.B. et al., Cemented femoral stem performance. effects of proximal bonding, geometry, and neck length, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1998, 355, 57-69.
17. LEWIS G., NYMAN J.S., Toward standardization of methods of determination of fracture properties of acrylic bone cement and statistical analysis of test results, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2000, 53, 6, 748-768.
18. NEW A.M. et al., Effect of hip stem taper on cement stresses, Orthopedics, 2005, 28, 8 Suppl, 857-862.
19. MASSIN P. et al., Influence of proximal stem geometry and stem-cement interface characteristics on bone and cement stresses in femoral hip arthroplasty: finite element analysis, Rev. Chir. Orthop. Reparatrice Appar. Mot., 2003, 89, 2, 134-143.
20. CRISTOFOLINI L. et al., Comparative in vitro study on the long term performance of cemented hip stems: validation of a protocol to discriminate between "good" and "bad" designs, J. Biomech., 2003, 36, 11, 1603-1615.
21. HERTZLER J. et al., Fatigue crack growth rate does not depend on mantle thickness: an idealized cemented stem construct under torsional loading, J. Orthop. Res., 2002, 20, 4, 676-682.
22. AYERS D., MANN K., The importance of proximal cement filling of the calcar region: a biomechanical justification, J. Arthroplasty, 2003, 18, 7 Suppl 1, 103-109.
23. RADCLIFFE I.A., TAYLOR M., Investigation into the effect of cementing techniques on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multi-femur finite element analysis, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon), 2007, 22, 4, 422-430.
24. MCCORMACK B.A., PRENDERGAST P.J., An analysis of crack propagation paths at implant/bone-cement interfaces, J. Biomech. Eng., 1996, 118, 4, 579-585.
25. WHEELER J.P. et al., The influence of the time-dependent properties of bone cement on stress in the femoral cement mantle of total hip arthroplasty, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med., 1999, 10, 8, 497-501.
26. KRAUSE W., MATHIS R.S., Fatigue properties of acrylic bone cements: review of the literature, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1988, 22, A1 Suppl, 37-53.
27. KRAUSE W. et al., Fatigue properties of acrylic bone cement: S-N, P-N, and P-S-N data, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1988, 22, 3 Suppl, 221-244.
28. HARPER E.J., BONFIELD W., Tensile characteristics of ten commercial acrylic bone cements, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2000, 53, 5, 605-616.
29. HOLM N.J., The modulus of elasticity and flexural strength of some acrylic bone cements, Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 1977, 48, 5, 436-442.
30. LEWIS G., MLADSI S., Correlation between impact strength and fracture toughness of pmma-based bone cements, Biomaterials, 2000, 21, 775-781.
31. GUANDALINI L. et al., A procedure and criterion for bone cement fracture toughness tests, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H], 2004, 218, 6, 445-450.
32. CRISTOFOLINI L. et al., A methodology and criterion for acrylic bone cement fatigue tests, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, 2000, 23, 11, 953-957.
33. NEWBY J., Asm Handbook, Volume 8. Mechanical Testing, ASM International, Materials Park, 1992.
34. LEWIS G., JANNA S., The influence of the viscosity classification of an acrylic bone cement on its in vitro fatigue performance, Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, 2004, 14, 1, 33-42.
35. LEWIS G. et al., Influence of the radiopacifier in an acrylic bone cement on its mechanical, thermal, and physical properties: barium sulfate-containing cement versus iodine-containing cement, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research (Applied Biomaterials), 2005, 73, 1, 77-87.
36. GINEBRA M.P. et al., Mechanical performance of acrylic bone cements containing different radiopacifying agents, Biomaterials, 2002, 23, 8, 1873-1882.
37. KÜHN K.D., Bone Cements. Up-to-Date Comparison of Physical and Chemical Properties of Commercial Materials, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
38. PENNATI G. et al., Influence of specimen molding technique on fatigue properties of a bone cement, Journal of Applied Biomaterials and Biomechanics, 2003, 1, 2, 148-153.
39. DUNNE N.J., ORR J.F., Influence of mixing techniques on the physical properties of acrylic bone cement, Biomaterials, 2001, 22, 13, 1819-1826.
40. DUNNE N.J. et al., The relationship between porosity and fatigue characteristics of bone cements, Biomaterials, 2003, 24, 2, 239-245.
41. GRAHAM J. et al., Fracture and fatigue properties of acrylic bone cement: the effects of mixing method, sterilization treatment, and molecular weight, The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2000, 15, 8, 1028-1035.
42. LEWIS G., Effect of mixing method and storage temperature of cement constituents on the fatigue and porosity of acrylic bone cement, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research (Applied Biomaterials), 1999, 48, 2, 143-149.
43. LEWIS G., Apparent fracture toughness of acrylic bone cement: effect of test specimen configuration and sterilization method, Biomaterials, 1999, 20, 1, 69-78.
44. LEWIS G., JANNA S., Effect of test specimen cross-sectional shape on the in vitro fatigue life of acrylic bone cement, Biomaterials, 2003, 24, 23, 4315-4321.
45. LEWIS G., Properties of acrylic bone cement: state of the art review, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research (Applied Biomaterials), 1997, 38, 2, 155-182.
46. LOONEY M.A., PARK J.B., Molecular and mechanical property changes during aging of bone cement in vitro and in vivo, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 1986, 20, 5, 555-63.
47. BARGAR W.L. et al., In vivo versus in vitro polymerization of acrylic bone cement: effect on material properties, Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 1986, 4, 1, 86-89.
48. NOTTROTT M. et al., Time dependent mechanical properties of bone cement. An in vitro study over one year, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B, Appl. Biomater., 2007, 83, 2, 416-421.
49. MINARI C. et al., The effect on the fatigue strength of bone cement of adding sodium fluoride, Proceedings of the Institutions of Mechanical Engineers Part H, 2001, 215, 2, 251-253.
50. PERSSON C. et al., Mechanical effects of the use of vancomycin and meropenem in acrylic bone cement, Acta Orthopaedica, 2006, 77, 4, 617-621.
51. BALEANI M. et al., Fatigue strength of pmma bone cement mixed with gentamicin and barium sulphate vs pure pmma, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H], 2003, 217, 1, 9-12.
52. MURPHY B.P., PRENDERGAST P.J., On the magnitude and variability of the fatigue strength of acrylic bone cement, International Journal of Fatigue, 2000, 22, 855-864.
53. LEWIS G., Relative influence of composition and viscosity of acrylic bone cement on its apparent fracture toughness, Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, 2000, 10, 1, 1-11.
54. BALEANI M. et al., The effect of gentamicin sulphate on the fracture properties of a manually mixed bone cement, Fatigue & Fracture of Enginneering Materials & Structures, 2007, 30, 479-488.
55. LEWIS G., AUSTIN G., Mechanical properties of vaccummixed acrylic bone cement, Journal of Applied Biomaterials, 1994, 5, 307-314.
56. LEWIS G. et al., Influence of the method of blending an antibiotic powder with an acrylic bone cement powder on physical, mechanical, and thermal properties of the cured cement, Biomaterials, 2005, 26, 20, 4317-4325.
57. WRIGHT T.M. et al., The effect of antibiotic additions on the fracture properties of bone cements, Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 1984, 55, 4, 414-418.
58. FREITAG T.A., CANNON S.L., Fracture characteristics of acrylic bone cements. Fracture toughness, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 1976, 10, 5, 805-828.
59. LEWIS G. et al., The apparent fracture toughness of acrylic bone cement: effect of three variables, Biomaterials, 1998, 19, 10, 961-967.
60. RIMNAC C.M. et al., The effect of centrifugation on the fracture properties of acrylic bone cements, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume, 1986, 68, 2, 281-287.
61. VILA M.M. et al., Effect of porosity and environment on the mechanical behavior of acrylic bone cement modified with acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene particles. I. Fracture toughness, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1999, 48, 2, 121-127.