Third Body Wear of UHMWPE-on-PEEK-OPTIMA™

Cowie, Raelene M.; Pallem, N; Briscoe, Adam; Jennings, Louise

doi:10.3390/ma13061264

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3][4] Furthermore, due to their good wear resistance, PEEK, and carbon fiber reinforced PEEK (CFR-PEEK) have been studied as articulating surface materials for artificial joints. 5,6 Although they have been extensively investigated, the delamination resistance of PEEK materials still remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro evaluation of delamination resistance of PEEK and CFR-PEEK

Sakoda

Uematsu

Okamoto

et al. 2021

Proc Inst Mech Eng H

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) and carbon fiber reinforced PEEK as orthopedic implant materials exhibit excellent material properties. Although delamination of PEEK materials has been reported in knee joint wear research, the delamination resistance behavior remains unclear. In this study, the delamination resistance of PEEK materials was investigated; these materials were compared to ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). The results of a ball-on-flat type delamination test indicated that the PEEK materials underwent delamination considerably earlier than UHMWPE, and the contact area of the PEEK materials was smaller than that of UHMWPE. Moreover, the indentation modulus, hardness, and coefficient of friction were higher for PEEK materials than for UHMWPE. The reduced tendency of PEEK materials to undergo deformation to mitigate stress concentration at low conformity contact conditions contributed to their inferior delamination resistance compared to that of UHMWPE. The delamination resistance of the PEEK materials was equivalent to that of degraded UHMWPE, which highlights the risk of delamination of PEEK implants in a clinical context. Consequently, when using PEEK materials as an implant component loaded at a low conformity contact condition, the material selection and component design must be carefully considered. Overall, the results of this study can help guide the future development of PEEK-based implants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro evaluation of delamination resistance of PEEK and CFR-PEEK

Sakoda

Uematsu

Okamoto

et al. 2021

Proc Inst Mech Eng H

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Polymeric material is a soft material that gradually wears out during the operation process. Hence, a significant influence on the durability of the tribological system in which the friction pair consists of a polymeric part and a ceramic part is that of the ceramic part and its surface topography characteristics [ 1 , 38 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stereometric and Tribometric Studies of Polymeric Pin and Ceramic Plate Friction Pair Components

Niemczewska-Wójcik

Wójcik²

2021

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tw o complementary approaches should be used for the full characterisation of friction pair components. The first approach consists of stereometric studies of machined as well as worn surface topography of the friction components with multiple measurement methods used. The second approach, tribometric studies, enables the tribological characteristics of the friction pair. This work presents the complete characterisation of polymeric pin and ceramic plate friction pair components based on studies with the use of three research instruments: an interference microscope, a scanning electron microscope and a tribological tester. The results of the studies showed that the same treatment conditions used for different but similar ceramic materials did not provide exactly the same characteristics of both the machined and worn surface topography. Moreover, the results showed that the material properties and machined surface topography of the ceramic component significantly affected the friction coefficient and linear wear as well as the wear intensity of the polymeric component. Connecting the two approaches, stereometric studies and tribometric studies, allowed for a better identification of the wear mechanism of the polymeric pin (i.e., abrasion, fatigue and adhesion wear) and the kind of wear products (polymeric material).

show abstract

“…Previous mechanical testing indicated that gross loosening of a PEEK femoral component is very unlikely if the fixation surface has been optimized to provide sufficient mechanical interlock [ 26 ]. However, micromotions of a loosened implant could cause abrasion of the cement–implant interface leading to the subsequent release of PEEK and/or cement particles, which may accelerate wear debris induced osteolysis and/or lead to failure of the cement mantle and could produce cement particles leading to third-body wear [ 29 , 30 ]. These potential complications underline the importance of understanding the implant–cement interface, particularly for a PEEK femoral TKA component.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Cyclic Loading and Motion on the Implant–Cement Interface and Cement Mantle of PEEK and Cobalt–Chromium Femoral Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants: A Preliminary Study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the fixation of a cemented PEEK femoral TKA component. PEEK and CoCr implants were subjected to a walking gait cycle for 10 million cycles (MC), 100,000 cycles or 0 cycles (unloaded control). A method was developed to assess the fixation at the cement–implant interface, which exposed the implants to a fluorescent penetrant dye solution. The lateral condyles of the implants were then sectioned and viewed under fluorescence to investigate bonding at the cement–implant interface and cracking of the cement mantle. When tested for 100,000 cycles, debonding of the cement–implant interface occurred in both PEEK (61%) and CoCr (13%) implants. When the duration of testing was extended (10 MC), the percentage debonding was further increased for both materials to 88% and 61% for PEEK and CoCr, respectively. The unloaded PEEK specimens were 79% debonded, which suggests that, when PEEK femoral components are cemented, complete bonding may never occur. Analysis of cracks in the cement mantle showed an absence of full-thickness cracks in the unloaded control group. For the 100,000-cycle samples, on average, 1.3 and 0.7 cracks were observed for PEEK and CoCr specimens, respectively. After 10 MC, these increased to 24 for PEEK and 19 for CoCr. This was a preliminary study with a limited number of samples investigated, but shows that, after 10 MC under a walking gait, substantial debonding was visible for both PEEK and CoCr implants at the cement–implant interface and no significant difference in the number of cement cracks was found between the two materials.

show abstract

Third Body Wear of UHMWPE-on-PEEK-OPTIMA™

Cited by 21 publications

References 30 publications

In vitro evaluation of delamination resistance of PEEK and CFR-PEEK

In vitro evaluation of delamination resistance of PEEK and CFR-PEEK

Stereometric and Tribometric Studies of Polymeric Pin and Ceramic Plate Friction Pair Components

The Effects of Cyclic Loading and Motion on the Implant–Cement Interface and Cement Mantle of PEEK and Cobalt–Chromium Femoral Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants: A Preliminary Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About