2002
DOI: 10.1111/j.1151-2916.2002.tb00529.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wear Simulation of Alumina‐on‐Alumina Prosthetic Hip Joints Using a Multidirectional Motion Pin‐on‐Disk Device

Abstract: The wear of a state‐of‐the‐art implant alumina against itself was studied with a circularly translating pin‐on‐disk (CTPOD) device, a wear simulator for prosthetic hip joint materials. The direction of sliding changed continually relative to the pin, preventing erroneous uniaxial grooving typical of ordinary pin‐on‐disk devices. The dominating wear mechanism was mild abrasion manifested as a relieflike surface, which agreed with clinical findings. The wear factor ranged from 1 × 10−8 to 6 × 10−8 mm3/(N·m). The… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
8
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Even though there was not any enhanced of fracture toughness with the addition of TiO 2 and Y-TZP, the values of this property are comparable with those of biomaterials that are currently used, the same with the Hardness Vickers. Also the values for the specific wear rate are lower than the values presented by Saikko et al (22) .…”
Section: Fesem Images Of Worn Surfaces Of Atz75 Samples At Higher Magcontrasting
confidence: 48%
“…Even though there was not any enhanced of fracture toughness with the addition of TiO 2 and Y-TZP, the values of this property are comparable with those of biomaterials that are currently used, the same with the Hardness Vickers. Also the values for the specific wear rate are lower than the values presented by Saikko et al (22) .…”
Section: Fesem Images Of Worn Surfaces Of Atz75 Samples At Higher Magcontrasting
confidence: 48%
“…This has earlier been shown with the CTPOD principle using ceramic-on-ceramic (Saikko and Keränen, 2002) and metal-on-metal, with and without coating (Joyce and Grigg, 2009). A ball-on-flat contact is preferred.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…It has been shown to produce valid wear also for hard-on-hard couples [24]. With these, it is recommendable to use a ball-on-flat contact and very low loads.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%