Nanomechanical properties of self‐reinforced composite poly(methyl methacrylate) as a function of processing temperature

Wright-Charlesworth, Debra D.; Peers, William J.; Miskioğlu, I.; Loo, Laura L.

doi:10.1002/jbm.a.30226

Cited by 21 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The bars were first tested in flexure,18 and the unloaded portion of the bar was sectioned using an Isomet 1000 saw (Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL) to create the nanoindentation samples, as shown in Figure 2. One section of each bar was tested because it has been seen that there are no significant differences in hardness and modulus at the nanoscale due to location in the bar 5. For each experimental condition, six samples were tested.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These testing conditions were chosen to represent quasi‐static loading conditions. The loading depth is based on our previous experience with PMMA5 and eliminates any surface effects that might be encountered with polymers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 5 shows a representative load‐displacement curve with labels indicating features important in calculating modulus and hardness 5. The equations necessary to calculate the hardness and modulus were developed by Oliver and Pharr4 and were also described in detail in a previous publication for our work with SRC‐PMMA 5. Briefly, the hardness ( H B ) of the material is the ratio of the maximum load ( P max ) to the projected contact area ( A ) of the indenter.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Representative nanoindentation data from PMMA sample 5. Variables labeled are used to calculate hardness and modulus.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The surface topography of an implant can be critical to its success, and the nanoindenter allows the determination of properties at the same scale that cells interact with the biomaterial. We have previously used the nanoindenter to study the properties of self‐reinforced composite poly(methyl methacrylate) as a function of retained molecular orientation 5. It was found that as the molecular orientation in the composite decreased, the resistance to scratching also decreased.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Nanoindentation of injection molded PLA and self‐reinforced composite PLA after in vitro conditioning for three months

Wright-Charlesworth

Miller

Miskioğlu

et al. 2005

J Biomedical Materials Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) is used for medical devices such as sutures or orthopedic screws. A standard way to determine the loss of mechanical properties of a degradable polymer would be to soak the polymer in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and test the desired property as a function of immersion time. This method is not sensitive enough to discern changes in mechanical properties through the cross-section of the polymer and neglects the degradation that is occurring at the molecular level. This article presents results of a nanoindentation study carried out with PLA. The modulus and hardness of PLA is characterized as a function of processing method, immersion time in PBS, and location of the indent. Measuring local properties with the nanoindenter allowed detection of differences in material properties as a function of all three of these variables. The mechanical properties on the edge were lower than the interior of the sample after in vitro degradation, and changes were seen earlier for nanoindentation than for traditional flexural or tensile tests. The nanoindenter is a valuable tool for quantifying changes in material properties and may have applicability for accelerated tests to screen biomaterials.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Representative nanoindentation data from PMMA sample 5. Variables labeled are used to calculate hardness and modulus.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nanoindentation of injection molded PLA and self‐reinforced composite PLA after in vitro conditioning for three months

Wright-Charlesworth

Miller

Miskioğlu

et al. 2005

J Biomedical Materials Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Polymer–Polymer Composites

Liu

2012

Wiley Encyclopedia of Composites

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the development of polymer–polymer composites, including the fundamental sciences such as the design principles and mechanisms, as well as their preparation techniques and potential application areas. The advantages of such self‐reinforced composite (SRC) systems include the achievement of perfect interfaces between components, their pure chemical functionality, and their higher value as recyclable products due to their relative homogeneity compared to composites composed of different classes of components. The key challenge in developing SRCs is increasing the difference between the thermal processing temperatures of the matrix and the reinforcement (particles or fibers), which are essentially the same material. This article focuses mainly on the most reported systems, that is, those based on polyolefin and polyester.

show abstract

Critical comparison of two methods for the determination of nanomechanical properties of a material: Application to synthetic and natural biomaterials

Lewis¹,

Xu²,

Dunne³

et al. 2006

J Biomed Mater Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two methods used for determining the elastic modulus (E) and hardness (H) of a material--the original version of the well-known Oliver-Pharr Method, OOPM, and a variant of it called the Modified Slopes Method, MSM--were critically compared. The nanoindentation test results, of indenter load-versus-indenter displacement, were recorded for six series of specimens, three of commercially-available acrylic bone cements (Palacos R and Cemex XL) and three of bones (human, bovine, and mouse). In the first series, the specimens were prepared from Palacos R cement mantles retrieved from cemented total hip joint replacements after 11 months, 11 years, and 21 years in vivo. In the second and third series, the specimens were fabricated from hand- and vacuum-mixed dough of Cemex XL cement, respectively. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth series, the specimens were prepared from fresh frozen cortical bone of human tibia, plexiform bone from fresh bovine tibia, and femora from inbred mice, respectively. It was found that, for a given material, the values of E or H computed using OOPM and MSM are not significantly different. However, the recommendation is that MSM is preferable because it is straightforward-only the nanoindentation measurements and values of constants that depend on the geometry of the indenter used are needed. In contrast, when the OOPM is used, there is a critical input (the indenter tip area function), whose computation is problematic. The article also includes a succinct discussion of factors that affect the values of material properties computed from nanoindentation measurements, such as the loading rate and the surface roughness of the test specimen.

show abstract

Nanomechanical properties of self‐reinforced composite poly(methyl methacrylate) as a function of processing temperature

Cited by 21 publications

References 26 publications

Nanoindentation of injection molded PLA and self‐reinforced composite PLA after in vitro conditioning for three months

Nanoindentation of injection molded PLA and self‐reinforced composite PLA after in vitro conditioning for three months

Polymer–Polymer Composites

Critical comparison of two methods for the determination of nanomechanical properties of a material: Application to synthetic and natural biomaterials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About