1996
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(199622)33:2<115::aid-jbm8>3.0.co;2-u
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is there any difference between vacuum mixing systems in reducing bone cement porosity?

Abstract: Six vacuum mixing systems, Cemvac, Merck, Mitvac, Optivac, Osteobond, and Stryker, were tested using prechilled Palacos R bone cement to investigate the reduction of porosity compared to mixing at atmospheric pressure. In addition the Optivac, Osteobond, and Stryker were tested using Simplex P bone cement to find out if they were effective in reducing the porosity of a middle viscosity bone cement. All vacuum mixing systems reduced the number of macropores (> 1 mm) and micropores (0.1 mm < voids < 1 mm) and in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
23
0
4

Year Published

1997
1997
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
3
23
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…These methods include using lowviscosity cement, vacuum mixing and centrifugation [70][71][72][73]. It was shown from these studies that significant reduction of porosity within the bone cement mantle was achieved employing vacuum mixing techniques, although there are some differences among the commercial available vacuum mixing systems.…”
Section: Methods To Reduce Porositymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods include using lowviscosity cement, vacuum mixing and centrifugation [70][71][72][73]. It was shown from these studies that significant reduction of porosity within the bone cement mantle was achieved employing vacuum mixing techniques, although there are some differences among the commercial available vacuum mixing systems.…”
Section: Methods To Reduce Porositymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the second it was preheated to 45°C. 21,24 In both the cement was either vacuum mixed with a nominal vacuum level of -0.8 Bar, 28,29 or mixed in air. Vacuum mixing was performed using a commercial mixing system (Optivac, Biomet Cementing Technologies AB, Sjöbo, Sweden).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vacuum mixing was performed using a commercial mixing system (Optivac, Biomet Cementing Technologies AB, Sjöbo, Sweden). 29 Air mixing used the same mixing system, except that the vacuum pump was not connected to the mixer. A total of 28 cement mantles were moulded, 12 for the bending test (three repetitions for each configuration) and 16 for the fatigue test (four repetitions for each configuration).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[2][3][4][5] Centrifugation and vacuum mixing were suggested as methods to improve the mechanical properties. [5][6][7][8][9] These improvements were attributed to the markedly reduced porosity and reduction in pore size in the hardened material. Porosity, pore size, and pore-size distribution were considered the main reasons for the lower strength of surgical-grade PMMA compared with industrial grade PMMA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%