Modeling and Characterization of Porous Tantalum Scaffolds
- 21 Downloads
In this work, porous tantalum scaffolds (having porosity up to ~ 71%) were prepared via space holder technique at a lower sintering temperature of 1300 °C. Depending on the amount of porosity, the elastic modulus, yield and compressive strength of porous tantalum scaffolds were found to vary in the range of 1–7 GPa, 4–11 MPa and 22–30 MPa, respectively. Finite element simulation results revealed that tantalum scaffolds with 30% porosity were best suited for hip joint replacement applications as the developed von Misses stresses and displacement of implants under given loading conditions were within safe limits for these scaffolds. The electrochemical behavior of scaffolds was evaluated using the electrochemical workstation in simulated body fluid solution, and the corrosion rate of tantalum scaffolds was found to increase from 5.011 to 8.718 mils per year with increasing porosity. These studies reveal that the tantalum scaffolds are very effective for bioapplications.
KeywordsPorous tantalum Scaffold Sintering Mechanical properties Modeling Corrosion
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Bobyn J D, Stackpool G J, Hacking S A, Tanzer M, and Krygier J J, J. Bone Joint Surg. 81B (1999) 907.Google Scholar
- 2.Hernández R, Polizu S, Turenne S, and Yahia L H, Bio-Med. Mater. Eng. 12 (2002) 37.Google Scholar
- 3.Ayers R A, Bateman T A, and Simske S J, Ed., Springer-Verlag, New York (2000) 73.Google Scholar
- 4.Bansiddhi A, Sargeant T D, Stupp S I, and Dunand D C, 4 (2008) 773.Google Scholar
- 7.Fabrizio M, Alessandra B, Luigi S, Christian C, and Massimo I, Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism 10 (2013) 111.Google Scholar
- 8.Ruperez E, Manero J M, Riccardi K, Yuping, Aparicio C, and Gil F J, Materials & Design 83 (2015) 112.Google Scholar
- 24.Zardiackas L D, Parsell D E, Dillon L D, Mitchell D W, Nunnery L A, and Poggie R, J Biomed Mater Res (Appl. Biomater) 58 (2001) 180.Google Scholar
- 25.Wauthle R, van der Stok J, Yavari S A, Van Humbeeck J, Kruth J-P, Zadpoor A A, Weinans H, Mulier M, and Schrooten J, Acta, Biomaterialia 14 (2015) 217.Google Scholar
- 26.Adamek G, and Jakubowicz J, Int. Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 53 (2015) 51.Google Scholar