Third-body Wear Damage Produced in CoCr Surfaces by Hydroxyapatite and Alumina Ceramic Debris: A 10-cycle Metal-on-Metal Simulator Study

T. Halim, M. Burgett-Moreno, T. Donaldson, I. Clarke
{"title":"Third-body Wear Damage Produced in CoCr Surfaces by Hydroxyapatite and Alumina Ceramic Debris: A 10-cycle Metal-on-Metal Simulator Study","authors":"T. Halim, M. Burgett-Moreno, T. Donaldson, I. Clarke","doi":"10.15438/RR.5.4.129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ceramic particles are believed to be particularly abrasive due to their extreme hardness. Ceramic debris has been reported in retrieved total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to chipping and fracture of alumina components or by flaking of hydroxyapatite from implant coatings. However there appears to be no abrasion ranking of such particle behavior. The hypotheses in this study were, i) alumina particles would create large scratches in CoCr surfaces and ii) hydroxyapatite would produce very mild scratching comparable to bone-cement particles. Hydroxyapatite beads came in two types of commercial powders while the flakes were scraped from retrieved femoral stems. Alumina beads came in two commercial powders and flakes were retrieved from a fractured ceramic head. Particle morphologies were determined by SEM and CoCr surface damage by interferometry and SEM. Six 38-mm MOM were mounted inverted in a hip simulator and run with ceramic particles inserted for a 10-second test. Surface-roughness ranking after 10-second abrasion test revealed that bone cement and hydroxyapatite produced least damage to CoCr surfaces while alumina produced the most. Alumina increased surface roughness 19-fold greater than either hydroxyapatite or bone-cement particles. The alumina debris produced numerous scratches typically 20-80 µm wide with some up to 140µm wide. Surprisingly the alumina beads and flakes were pulverized within the 10-second test interval and remained adherent to the CoCr surfaces. Additionally, the hydroxyapatite although also a ceramic had no more effect on CoCr than the bone-cement debris. Use of well-characterized and commercially available alumina and hydroxyapatite powders appeared advantageous for abrasion tests. These new data indicated that such ceramic powders have merit.","PeriodicalId":20884,"journal":{"name":"Reconstructive Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reconstructive Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15438/RR.5.4.129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Ceramic particles are believed to be particularly abrasive due to their extreme hardness. Ceramic debris has been reported in retrieved total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to chipping and fracture of alumina components or by flaking of hydroxyapatite from implant coatings. However there appears to be no abrasion ranking of such particle behavior. The hypotheses in this study were, i) alumina particles would create large scratches in CoCr surfaces and ii) hydroxyapatite would produce very mild scratching comparable to bone-cement particles. Hydroxyapatite beads came in two types of commercial powders while the flakes were scraped from retrieved femoral stems. Alumina beads came in two commercial powders and flakes were retrieved from a fractured ceramic head. Particle morphologies were determined by SEM and CoCr surface damage by interferometry and SEM. Six 38-mm MOM were mounted inverted in a hip simulator and run with ceramic particles inserted for a 10-second test. Surface-roughness ranking after 10-second abrasion test revealed that bone cement and hydroxyapatite produced least damage to CoCr surfaces while alumina produced the most. Alumina increased surface roughness 19-fold greater than either hydroxyapatite or bone-cement particles. The alumina debris produced numerous scratches typically 20-80 µm wide with some up to 140µm wide. Surprisingly the alumina beads and flakes were pulverized within the 10-second test interval and remained adherent to the CoCr surfaces. Additionally, the hydroxyapatite although also a ceramic had no more effect on CoCr than the bone-cement debris. Use of well-characterized and commercially available alumina and hydroxyapatite powders appeared advantageous for abrasion tests. These new data indicated that such ceramic powders have merit.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
羟基磷灰石和氧化铝陶瓷碎片在CoCr表面产生的第三体磨损损伤:一个10循环金属对金属模拟器研究
陶瓷颗粒由于其极高的硬度而被认为具有特别的磨蚀性。陶瓷碎片在全髋关节置换术(THA)中有报道,原因是氧化铝部件的碎裂和断裂或羟基磷灰石从植入物涂层中剥落。然而,这种颗粒的行为似乎没有磨损等级。本研究的假设是,i)氧化铝颗粒会在CoCr表面产生较大的划痕,ii)羟基磷灰石会产生非常轻微的划痕,与骨水泥颗粒相当。羟基磷灰石珠子有两种类型的商业粉末,而薄片是从取出的股茎上刮下来的。氧化铝珠以两种商业粉末的形式出现,从断裂的陶瓷头中取出薄片。采用扫描电镜和干涉测量法对CoCr表面损伤进行了分析。将6个38毫米MOM倒置安装在髋关节模拟器中,并插入陶瓷颗粒进行10秒的测试。10秒磨损试验后的表面粗糙度排序显示,骨水泥和羟基磷灰石对CoCr表面的损伤最小,而氧化铝对CoCr表面的损伤最大。氧化铝增加的表面粗糙度比羟基磷灰石或骨水泥颗粒大19倍。氧化铝碎片产生了许多划痕,通常为20-80微米宽,有些高达140微米宽。令人惊讶的是,氧化铝珠和薄片在10秒的测试间隔内被粉碎,并保持附着在CoCr表面上。此外,羟基磷灰石虽然也是一种陶瓷,但对CoCr的影响并不比骨水泥碎片大。使用表征良好且市售的氧化铝和羟基磷灰石粉末似乎有利于磨损试验。这些新的数据表明,这种陶瓷粉末是有价值的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Post-operative outcomes, including opioid utilization and length of stay, following total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective case matched series comparing conventional and robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty Can Knees be Forgotten 2 Years After Total Knee Arthroplasty? Tranexamic Acid Should be Considered for High Risk Arthroplasty Patients Life Lost Too Soon: Navy Corpsman from Ohio Killed in Afghanistan Attack August 26, 2021 A Literature-Based Resource for the Development of Outpatient Arthroplasty Patient Selection Criteria
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1