Creep dominates tensile fatigue damage of the cement–bone interface

D, Kim; Miller, Mark A.; Mann, Kenneth A.

doi:10.1016/j.orthres.2003.09.007

Cited by 38 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is reasonable because specimens with interdigitated regions had more surface discontinuities between cement and bone compared to the contact interface cases.Tensile stiffness of a cement-bone construct is related to tensile strength. 22 However, we showed that the opening motion at the interface was correlated with strength. The mechanism behind this relationship is unclear, but may be influenced by load transfer paths and relative interlock between cement and bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Experimental micromechanics of the cement–bone interface

Mann

Miller

Cleary

et al. 2008

Journal Orthopaedic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the widespread use of cement as a means of fixation of implants to bone, surprisingly little is known about the micromechanical behavior in terms of the local interfacial motion. In this work, we utilized digital image correlation techniques to quantify the micromechanics of the cement-bone interface of laboratory-prepared cemented total hip replacements subjected to nondestructive, quasistatic tensile and compressive loading. Upon loading, the majority of the displacement response localized at the contact interface region between cement and bone. The contact interface was more compliant ( p ¼ 0.0001) in tension (0.0067 AE 0.0039 mm/MPa) than compression (0.0051 AE 0.0031 mm/MPa), and substantial hysteresis occurred due to sliding contact between cement and bone. The tensile strength of the cement-bone interface was inversely proportional to the compliance of the interface and proportional to the cement/bone contact area. When loaded beyond the ultimate strength, the strain localization process continued at the contact interface between cement and bone with microcracking (damage) to both. More overall damage occurred to the cement than to the bone. The opening and closing at the contact interface from loading could serve as a conduit for submicron size particles. In addition, the cement mantle is not mechanically supported by surrounding bone as optimally as is commonly assumed. Both effects may influence the longevity of the reconstruction and could be considered in preclinical tests. ß

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Experimental micromechanics of the cement–bone interface

Mann

Miller

Cleary

et al. 2008

Journal Orthopaedic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deterioration of the interface is very fast in this type of surfaces and there is not adhesion between the stem and cement. Another limitation of the model is the creep damage behavior of the bone-cement interface which was demonstrated to be important experimentally by Kim et al 25,26 Its incorporation into the model would imply an improvement of the mechanical simulation of the behavior of this kind of interfaces. 38 However, they would mainly affect the long-term behavior of the system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several experimental studies have shown the importance of the fatigue response (cyclic damage accumulation) of the bone-cement interface due to tensile and shear loading. 25,26 As it is impossible to follow the whole process cycle by cycle, in our study the damage evolution under cyclic loading is approximated through the classical Miner rule. 27 The interface model used herein only considered damage accumulation at the interface under normal and shear tractions, never under compression.…”

Section: Bone-cement Interface Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 There are several computational studies that have modeled the bone-cement interface: its tensile behavior, 34 mechanical strength of the bone-cement interface in shear and in tension, 35 mixed mode, 33 and creep fatigue damage. 26 Some of these studies have associated the mechanical properties of the interface with the bone interdigitated within the cement. 7,29,30,33,34 Mann and Damron 32 incorporated postyield softening behavior in directions, normal and shear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Increased Bone–Cement Interface Strength have Negative Consequences for Bulk Cement Integrity? A Finite Element Study

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant loosening is one of the most important modes of failure of cemented total hip replacement. It may be related to the cement strength, cement-prosthesis interface, cement-bone interface, surgical technique, or stem design. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of bone-cement interface mechanical properties on cement degradation. The computational methodology proposed herein combines a previously developed bone-cement interface damage model and an accumulative damage model for bulk cement. This has been applied to a finite element model of an Exeter cemented hip implant. A higher strength of the bone-cement interface due to a higher amount of interdigitated bone results in faster cement deterioration. Over time, damage both at the bone-cement interface and in the cement mantle worsens. Also, a larger debonded area was predicted proximally, as observed in clinical practice. We conclude that the computational model proposed herein allows a realistic simulation of the bone-cement interface debonding and cement degradation, being a useful tool in the design of this kind of medical devices.

show abstract

“…Several experimental studies have shown the importance of the fatigue response of the bone-cement interface due to tensile and shear loading. 19,20 As it is impossible to follow the whole process cycle by cycle, damage evolution under cyclic loading is approximated through the classic Miner rule. 21 S-N bone-cement interface response for both shear and tensile loading was estimated from experimental studies.…”

Section: Creep/damage Model For the Cementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Finite Element Analysis of the Debonding Process in Different Concepts of Cemented Hip Implants

Pérez

Palacios

2010

Ann Biomed Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Damage accumulation in the cement mantle and debonding of the bone-cement interface are basic events that contribute to the long-term failure of cemented hip reconstructions. In this work, a numerical study with these two process coupled is presented. Previously uniform bone-cement interface mechanical properties were only considered. In this work, a new approach assuming nonuniform and random bone-cement interface mechanical properties was applied to investigate its effect on cement degradation. This methodology was also applied to simulate and compare the degradation process of the cement and bone-cement interface in three different concepts of design: Exeter, Charnley, and ABG II stems. Nonuniform and random mechanical properties of the bone-cement interface implied a simulation closer to reality. The predicted results showed that the cement deterioration and bone-cement interface debonding is different for each implant depending on the stem geometry. Lower cement deterioration was obtained for the Charnley stem and lower bone-cement interface debonding was predicted for the Exeter stem, while the highest deterioration (cement and bone-cement interface) was produced for the ABG II stem.

show abstract

Creep dominates tensile fatigue damage of the cement–bone interface

Cited by 38 publications

References 19 publications

Experimental micromechanics of the cement–bone interface

Experimental micromechanics of the cement–bone interface

Does Increased Bone–Cement Interface Strength have Negative Consequences for Bulk Cement Integrity? A Finite Element Study

Comparative Finite Element Analysis of the Debonding Process in Different Concepts of Cemented Hip Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About