Literature DB >> 24503049

The influence of bone damage on press-fit mechanics.

Nicholas E Bishop1, Jan-Christian Höhn2, Stephan Rothstock2, Niklas B Damm2, Michael M Morlock2.   

Abstract

Press-fitting is used to anchor uncemented implants in bone. It relies in part on friction resistance to relative motion at the implant-bone interface to allow bone ingrowth and long-term stability. Frictional shear capacity is related to the interference fit of the implant and the roughness of its surface. It was hypothesised here that a rough implant could generate trabecular bone damage during implantation, which would reduce its stability. A device was constructed to simulate implantation by displacement of angled platens with varying surface finishes (polished, beaded and flaked) onto the surface of an embedded trabecular bone cube, to different nominal interferences. Push-in (implantation) and Pull-out forces were measured and micro-CT scans were made before and after testing to assess permanent bone deformation. Depth of permanent trabecular bone deformation ('damage'), Pull-out force and Radial force all increased with implantation displacement and with implantation force, for all surface roughnesses. The proposed hypothesis was rejected, since primary stability did not decrease with trabecular bone damage. In fact, Pull-out force linearly increased with push-in force, independently of trabecular bone damage or implant surface. This similar behaviour for the different surfaces might be explained by the compaction of bone into the surfaces during push-in so that Pull-out resistance is governed by bone-on-bone, rather than implant surface-on-bone friction. The data suggest that maximum stability is achieved for the maximum implantation force possible (regardless of trabecular bone damage or surface roughness), but this must be limited to prevent periprosthetic cortical bone fracture, patient damage and component malpositioning.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone damage; Bone experiment; Implant anchorage; Press fit; Uncemented implants

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24503049     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.01.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  6 in total

Review 1.  Biomechanical behaviours of the bone-implant interface: a review.

Authors:  Xing Gao; Manon Fraulob; Guillaume Haïat
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  Optimal interference of the tibial component of the cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement.

Authors:  S Campi; S J Mellon; D Ridley; B Foulke; C A F Dodd; H G Pandit; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 5.853

3.  Alendronate enhances osseointegration in a murine implant model.

Authors:  Klemens Vertesich; Branden R Sosa; Yingzhen Niu; Gang Ji; Vincentius Suhardi; Kathleen Turajane; Sehwan Mun; Ren Xu; Reinhard Windhager; Kyung Hyun Park-Min; Matthew B Greenblatt; Mathias P Bostrom; Xu Yang
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  Impaction technique influences implant stability in low-density bone model.

Authors:  Ruben Doyle; Richard J van Arkel; Sarah Muirhead-Allwood; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 5.853

5.  Additive manufactured push-fit implant fixation with screw-strength pull out.

Authors:  Richard J van Arkel; Shaaz Ghouse; Piers E Milner; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  Effect of impaction energy on dynamic bone strains, fixation strength, and seating of cementless acetabular cups.

Authors:  Ruben Doyle; Richard J van Arkel; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 3.494

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.