
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.30213
pmid: 15685611
AbstractThree types of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) acetabular liners were tested against cobalt–chrome (CoCr) femoral heads on a hip simulator to approximately 20 million cycles. The materials included (1) conventional, nonirradiated liners (C‐PE); (2) 5 Mrad γ‐irradiated, remelted, and artificially aged liners (5‐XPE); and (3) 10 Mrad γ‐irradiated, remelted, and artificially aged liners (10‐XPE). Wear was quantified by gravimetric analysis and wear particle characterization. Particle number and morphology were quantified by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and compared between groups. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) was used to measure particle height in an effort to improve the total wear volume estimation. The wear debris, as characterized by SEM, was predominantly submicron and round, with occasional fibrils documented in the C‐PE material. AFM analysis showed that particle height was approximately one‐third of the particle equivalent circular diameter for all three materials. This correlation was used to improve the estimation of volumetric wear rate through SEM particle analysis. This technique is particularly useful for high‐dose crosslinked UHMWPE, such as 10‐XPE, which show weight gain due to fluid absorption during wear testing. This study has shown that particle analysis provides additional particle morphology and quantity information that cannot be obtained through gravimetric analysis. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater
Biocompatible Materials, Microscopy, Atomic Force, Models, Biological, Gamma Rays, Materials Testing, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Computer Simulation, Hip Prosthesis, Stress, Mechanical, Polyethylenes
Biocompatible Materials, Microscopy, Atomic Force, Models, Biological, Gamma Rays, Materials Testing, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Computer Simulation, Hip Prosthesis, Stress, Mechanical, Polyethylenes
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 55 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
