Tensile characteristics of ten commercial acrylic bone cements

Citation
Ej. Harper et W. Bonfield, Tensile characteristics of ten commercial acrylic bone cements, J BIOMED MR, 53(5), 2000, pp. 605-616
Citations number
24
Categorie Soggetti
Multidisciplinary
Journal title
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH
ISSN journal
00219304 → ACNP
Volume
53
Issue
5
Year of publication
2000
Pages
605 - 616
Database
ISI
SICI code
0021-9304(200010)53:5<605:TCOTCA>2.0.ZU;2-U
Abstract
The mechanical properties of acrylic bone cement, used in orthopedic surger y, are very influential in determining successful long-term stability of a prosthesis. A large number of commercial formulations are available, differ ing in chemical composition and physical properties of both powder and mono mer constituents. In this study, the static and dynamic tensile characteris tics of a number of the most commonly used bone cements (Palacos(R) R, Simp lex(R) P, CMW(R) 1 & 3, Sulfix(R)-60, Zimmer(R) Dough), along with some new er formulations (Endurance(R), Duracem 3, Osteobond(TM) and Boneloc(R)), ha ve been investigated under the same testing regimes. Testing was performed in air at room temperature. Significant differences in both static and fati gue properties were found between the various bone cements. Tensile tests r evealed that Palacos(R) R, Sulfix(R)-60, and Simplex(R) P had the highest v alues of ultimate tensile strength, closely followed by CMW(R) 3, while Zim mer(R) Dough cement had the lowest strength. Fatigue testing was performed under stress control, using sinusoidal loading in tension-tension, with an upper stress level of 22MPa. The two outstanding cements when tested in the se cyclic conditions were Simplex(R) P and Palacos(R) R, with the highest v alues of Weibull median cycles to failure. Boneloc(R) bone cement demonstra ted the lowest cycles to failure. While the testing regimes were not design ed to replicate exact conditions experienced by the bone cement mantle in v ivo, there was a correlation between these results and clinical outcome. (C ) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.