The Effect of Bottom Profile Dimples on the Femoral Head on Wear in Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

Wear and wear-induced debris is a significant factor in causing failure in implants. Reducing contact pressure by using a textured surface between the femoral head and acetabular cup is crucial to improving the implant’s life. This study presented the effect of surface texturing as dimples on the wear evolution of total hip arthroplasty. It was implemented by developing finite element analysis from the prediction model without dimples and with bottom profile dimples of flat, drill, and ball types. Simulations were carried out by performing 3D physiological loading of the hip joint under normal walking conditions. A geometry update was initiated based on the patient’s daily routine activities. Our results showed that the addition of dimples reduced contact pressure and wear. The bottom profile dimples of the ball type had the best ability to reduce wear relative to the other types, reducing cumulative linear wear by 24.3% and cumulative volumetric wear by 31% compared to no dimples. The findings demonstrated that surface texturing with appropriate dimple bottom geometry on a bearing surface is able to extend the lifetime of hip implants.

Influence of Implant Scanbody Wear on the Accuracy of Digital Impression for Complete-Arch: A Randomized In Vitro Trial

“…A mismatch in materials between the base and the implant may influence displacement of the ISB when tightened into place [ 17 ]. The wear of this component through repeated use and sterilization may also cause changes in positioning over time, which could be problematic as the overall fit of any ISB is a decisive factor for a high-precision transfer of the implant position and inclination [ 18 , 19 ]. To our knowledge, the influence of wear resulting from ISB’s repositioning on the implant over the IOS impression accuracy was never investigated, and no reference data are currently available in the literature.…”

Bacterial Cellulose—A Remarkable Polymer as a Source for Biomaterials Tailoring

“…The common classification of biomaterials consists of four distinct classes: polymers, composites, ceramics, and metals [ 7 ]. For the biomedical and pharmaceutical fields (tissue engineering, wound dressings, bioimaging, drug delivery systems, implants, biosensors, biomedical diagnoses, and treatment of various conditions) [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], the new projected materials should display similar biological and structural characteristics, such as the indigenous extracellular matrix [ 13 ]. The novel biomaterials should have the capacity to sustain their structural stability to assure cellular proliferation and the development of new skin tissues [ 14 ].…”

Mapping Bone Marrow Cell Response from Senile Female Rats on Ca-P-Doped Titanium Coating

“…Biomaterials need to have osteoinduction, osteoconduction, osteopromotion properties, as well as long-term stability and biocompatibility. Numerous studies describe favorable bioactivity on porous surfaces [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Roughness and porosity are two interdependent surface characteristics of bioactive surfaces that result from the manufacturing process.…”