Adapting Titanium Implants to the Elasticity of Bone by Comparison of Spring Stiffness

Hohenhoff, Gerrit; Haferkamp, H.; Ostendorf, Andreas; Meier, Oliver; Ostermeier, Sven; Schimek, Mitja

doi:10.1002/adem.200600241

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is extensive literature concerning analysis of these two aspects of implants' biomechanical characteristics. Intramedullary implants (tibia -implant system) [1,2], dental bridges affixed to mandibular implants [3,4], hip joint implants [5,6], stabilizing plates [7][8][9][10][11], vertebral body implants [12,13], SOP (String of Pearls) [14], porous titanium implants [15], humeral heads [16][17][18] and other implants have been analyzed experimentally and numerically. The subject matter of these publications pertains to one-piece implants and their fixation to bone tissue as well as to more complex systems with a geometry that is unchanging throughout the course of their exploitation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Electronic Speckle Pattern Interferometry for Evaluation of the Static Stiffness of a Complex Orthopedic Implant

Mrozek¹,

Borkowski²

2021

Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents a comparative analysis of the results of experimental and numerical evaluation of static stiffness of extendable tumor knee joint prosthesis for children. Electronic speckle pattern interferometry and finite element method were used for experimental and computational research, respectively. The procedure of experimental tests shows that the stiffness of the joint prosthesis can be determined experimentally by means of electronic speckle pattern interferometry, but the quantitative result of such a procedure cannot be captured directly in a finite element method model. The values of static stiffness calculated numerically do not fall within the range of experimental results. The discrepancy grows as the extension of the endoprosthesis increases and the value of relative difference between numerical and experimental results reaches the value of 54%. The inconsistency of results can be explained by the involvement of the joint linking the body of the implant to the moving part. While effective in the case of traditional, one-piece constructions, finite element method modeling does not yield satisfactory results in the case of such an elementary parameter as is the static stiffness of the implant, due to the difficulty in estimating the stiffness of the joint present in the sliding node. The use of the experimental method makes it possible to estimate the degree of this inconsistency.

show abstract