High‐strength poly(para‐phenylene) as an orthopedic biomaterial

Abstract

Yield strength 5 92.0 6 4.6 MPa; Fracture strength 5 77.2 6 5.1 MPa; Modulus (E) 5 3104 6 163 MPa; Fracture strain 5 11.1 6 3.5%. 2. On page 3125, the line saying "PEEK experienced plateauing at 0.47 wt.% after 453 days" needs to be altered to: "PEEK experienced a plateau followed by a slight increase to 0.85 wt.% after 276 days". 3. On page 3125, the line saying "However, PEEK had a significant increase in strain to failure values." needs to be removed as that is not the case. 4. On page 3128, the line saying PEEK is approaching 0.5 wt.% at 453 days is incorrect, but rather 0.85 wt.% after 276 days. 5. In Figure 3, the caption should read the break in abscissa is between 40 and 200 days.The journal regrets any confusion caused by these errors. 860V C 2014 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.

Monotonic and cyclic loading behavior of porous scaffolds made from poly(para-phenylene) for orthopedic applications

“…Previous work has shown that PrimoSpire PR-250 consists of an aromatic backbone with aromatic side groups (Frick et al, 2014). Sodium chloride (NaCl) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC (St. Louis, MO) and was separated by a sifting process to attain the desired crystal size appropriate for this study (420-500 mm).…”

“…They showed that water absorption was less than 1% after 44 days of soaking and a little-to-no effect was observed on the mechanical properties. Further testing by some of the current authors revealed that the mechanical properties stayed within one standard deviation of dry conditions after soaking in an aqueous environment for over 1 year (Frick et al, 2014). The bulky side groups within the structure of PPPs act as diffusional barriers that prevent water molecules from swelling the polymer (Barnes et al, 1988;Corkhill et al, 1987), resulting in negligible effects on the mechanical properties.…”

“…The bulky side groups within the structure of PPPs act as diffusional barriers that prevent water molecules from swelling the polymer (Barnes et al, 1988;Corkhill et al, 1987), resulting in negligible effects on the mechanical properties. In addition to absorption testing, initial cytotoxicity testing of PPP (Frick et al, 2014) shows that it is non-toxic, which was expected due to its chemical inertness.…”

“…While the fatigue behavior of fully dense PPP has been investigated in a previous study (Frick et al, 2014), the fatigue behavior of porous PPP is completely unexplored. Cyclic loading is a common source of failure in polymeric orthopedic devices due to the nature of human motion (Simske et al, 1997;Ganguly et al, 2004;Hartwig and Knaak, 1991;Brillhart and Botsis, 1994;Brillhart et al, 1991;Sobieraj et al, 2010), as such, it has been well documented that this effect must be taken into account when developing a new polymer based biomaterial.…”

“…The mechanical characteristics of the PPP used in this study were determined in comparison to other common biomedical grade polymers (Frick et al, 2014); it was found that PPP has strength and stiffness much greater than these materials. It was shown that PPP has an average tensile strength of 141 MPa, exceeding that of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (96 MPa) and high density polyethelene (HDPE) (30 MPa).…”