Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:39:11.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Cross-linking and Oxidation on the Microstructural Mechanical Properties of UHMWPE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Marcel E. Roy
Marcel E. Roy*
Affiliation:
Biomedical Engineering, Saint Louis University3507 Lindell Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63103
Get access

Abstract

Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) is commonly used as a bearing surface in total joint replacements. This study examined the effects of cross-linking and oxidation on the mechanical properties of UHMWPE at the microstructural level, rather than at the bulk level. Nanoindentation tests were performed on the articulating surfaces of two freshly machined UHMWPE acetabular inserts, one of which was cross-linked, and also performed along a freshly cut cross-section of a UHMWPE tibial insert that had been sealed in its original packaging and shelf-aged for at least five years. The reduced modulus of cross-linked UHMWPE was significantly lower than native UHMWPE. Tests on the cross-section of the shelf-aged specimen revealed a reduced modulus profile with a subsurface peak that was similar to the oxidation profiles of aged UHMWPE observed by others. Future work should examine the microstructural mechanical properties of UHMWPE using methods that more accurately account for its viscoelastic nature, and should directly correlate microstructural properties with oxidation.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 874: Symposium l – Structure and Mechanical Behavior of Biological Materials , 2005 , L5.4
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Oonishi, H, Ishimaru, H, and Kato, A. J Mater Sci Mater Med 7, 753 (1996).Google Scholar
2. Muratoglu, OK, Bragdon, CR, O'Connor, DO, Merrill, EW, Jasty, M, and Harris, WH. Trans Soc Biomaterials 20, 74 (1997).Google Scholar
3. Goldman, M and Pruitt, L. J Biomed Mater Res 40, 378 (1998).Google Scholar
4. Lewis, G. Biomaterials 22, 371 (2001).Google Scholar
5. Baker, DA, Hastings, RS, and Pruitt, L. J Biomed Mater Res 46, 573 (1999).Google Scholar
6. McKellop, H, Shew, FW, and Salovey, R. Trans 44th Orthop Res Soc 23, 98 (1998).Google Scholar
7. McKellop, HA, Shen, FW, Lu, B, Campbell, P, and Salovey, R. J Orthop Res 17, 157 (1999).Google Scholar
8. Chiesa, R, Tanzi, MC, Alfonsi, S, Paracchini, L, Moscatelli, M, and Cigada, A. J Biomed Mater Res 50, 381 (2000).Google Scholar
9. Rimnac, CM, Klein, RK, Betts, F, and Wright, TM. J Bone Joint Surg 76-A, 1052 (1994).Google Scholar
10. Sutula, LC, Collier, JP, Saum, KA, Currier, BH, Currier, JH, Sanford, WM, Mayor, MB, Wooding, RE, Sperling, DK, Williams, IR, Kasprzak, DJ, and Suprenant, V. Clin Orthop 319, 28 (1995).Google Scholar
11. Goldman, M, Gronsky, R, Ranganathan, R, and Pruitt, L. Polymer 37, 2909 (1996).Google Scholar
12. Costa, L, Luda, MP, Trossarelli, L, Brach, del Prever EM, Crova, M, and Gallinaro, P. Biomaterials 19, 659 (1998).Google Scholar
13. Collier, JP, Sperling, DK, Currier, JH, Sutula, LC, Saum, KA, and Mayor, MB. J Arthroplasty 11, 377 (1996).Google Scholar
14. Deng, M and Shalaby, SW. J Biomed Mater Res 54, 428 (2001).Google Scholar
15. Daly, BM and Yin, J. J Biomed Mater Res 42, 523 (1998).Google Scholar
16. Jacob, RJ, Pienkowski, D, Lee, KY, Hamilton, DM, and Schroeder, D. J Biomed Mater Res 56, 168 (2001).Google Scholar
17. Kurtz, SM, Turner, J, MacDonald, D, Marcolongo, M, Edidin, AA, and Rimnac, CM. Trans 51st Orthop Res Soc 30, 1680 (2005).Google Scholar
18. Kurtz, SM, Marcolongo, M, Rimnac, C, Hozack, W, Turner, J, Goldberg, V, Kraay, M, and Edidin, A. Trans 50th Orthop Res Soc 29, 0186 (2004).Google Scholar
19. Sneddon, IN. Int J Engng Sci 3, 47 (1965).Google Scholar
20. Doerner, MF and Nix, WD. J Mater Res 1, 601 (1986).Google Scholar
21. Oliver, WC and Pharr, GM. J Mater Res 7, 1564 (1992).Google Scholar
22. Pharr, GM. Mater Sci Engr A253, 151 (1998).Google Scholar
23. Briscoe, BJ, Fiori, L, and Pelillo, E. J Appl Phys D 31, 2395 (1998).Google Scholar
24. Feng, G and Ngan, AHW, “The effects of creep on elastic modulus measurement using nanoindentation,” Fundamentals of Nanoindentation and Nanotribology II, ed. SP, Baker, Cook, RF, Corcoran, SG, and Moody, NR (Mat Res Soc Symp Proc 649, 2001) pp. Q7.1–6.Google Scholar
25. Schmidt, MA, Joy, DC, Pharr, GM, Swadener, JG, and Higgins, JC. Trans 6th Biomaterials Congr, 1255 (2000).Google Scholar
26. Klapperich, C, Komvopoulos, K, and Pruitt, L. J Tribol 123, 624 (2001).Google Scholar
27. Klapperich, C, Pruitt, L, and Komvopoulos, K. J Mater Res 17, 423 (2002).Google Scholar
28. Zhou, J, Chakravartula, A, Pruitt, L, and Komvopoulos, K. J Tribol 126, 386 (2004).Google Scholar
29. Gilbert, JL, Cumber, J, and Butterfield, A. J Biomed Mater Res 61, 270 (2002).Google Scholar
30. Gilbert, J and Merkhan, I. J Biomed Mater Res 71A, 549 (2004).Google Scholar
31. Woodard, S, Riester, L, and Eberhardt, A. Trans 25th Am Soc Biomech, (2001).Google Scholar
32. Ho, SP, Riester, L, Drews, M, Boland, T, and LaBerge, M. Proc Instn Mech Engrs H: J Engng in Medicine 216, 123 (2002).Google Scholar
33. Grunlan, JC, Xia, XY, Rowenhorst, D, and Gerberich, WW. Rev Sci Instr 72, 2804 (2001).Google Scholar
34. Carrillo, F, Gupta, S, Pruitt, L, Balooch, M, and Puttlitz, CM. Trans 51st Orthop Res Soc 30, 0983 (2005).Google Scholar
35. Currier, JH, Currier, BH, Rice, PJ, VanCitters, DW, and Collier, JP. Trans 51st Orthop Res Soc 30, 1665 (2005).Google Scholar