• Chunming Jin
  • Wei Wei


Wear is a critical issue for prostheses, implants, and other medical devices. Wear may lead to significant loss of material and/or failure of a medical device. For example, wear and wear-related damage commonly cause failure of hip, knee, and other orthopedic prostheses [1]. Even a relatively small amount of wear can lead to significant degradation of function for some medical devices. For example, wear debris generated from degradation of a joint prosthesis can result in a biological process known as osteolysis (bone resorption), which can cause loosening of the prosthesis [2, 3], Wear may also lead to failure of artificial heart valves and other medical devices that enable critical physiologic activities [4]. In this chapter, the wear mechanisms that are commonly encountered in biomedical materials and medical devices are discussed.


Wear Rate Abrasive Wear Wear Mechanism Wear Debris Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Wright TM and Goodman SB, eds. Implant Wear in Total Joint Replacement: Clinical and Biologic Issues, Material and Design Considerations, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Rosemont, IL, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhu YH, Chiu KY and Tang WM. Polyethylene wear and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty, J Orthop Surg, 2001, 9: 91–99.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teoh SH. Fatigue of biomaterials: a review, Int J Fatigue, 2000, 22: 825–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelpetko V, Moritz A, Schurawitzki H, Domanig E and Wolner E. Leaflet fracture in Edwards–Duromedics bileaflet valves. J Thoracic Cardiovascular Surg, 1989, 97, 90–94.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hutchings IM, ed. Biotribology – A Personal View, Friction, Lubrication and Wear of Artificial Joints, Professional Engineering Publishing Ltd.: Bury St. Edmunds, UK, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buckley DH, Jones WR Jr, Sliney HE, Zaretsky EV, Townsend DP, and Loewenthal SH. Tribology: The Story of Lubrication and Wear, NASA Technical Memorandum 101430, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhushan B, ed. Modern Tribology Handbook, CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Black J. Biological performance of materials: Fundamentals of biocompatibility, Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Standard terminology relating to wear and erosion, standard G-40-01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutchings IM, The Challenge of Wear, in Stachowiak GW, ed. Wear-Materials, Mechanisms and Practice: Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, UK, 2005, Chapter 1, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bayer RG, Mechanical wear: fundamentals and testing, Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKellop HA. The lexicon of polyethylene wear in artificial joints. Biomaterials, 2007, 28: 5049–5057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stachowiak GW and Batchelor AW. Engineering Tribology, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: Amsterdam, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buckley DH and Miyoshi K. Friction and wear of ceramics. Wear, 1984, 100: 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Archard JF. Contact and Rubbing of Flat Surfaces. J Appl Phys, 1953, 24: 981–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burwell JT Jr. Survey of possible wear mechanisms. Wear, 1957, 1: 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burwell JT and Strang CD. On the Empirical Law of Adhesive Wear, J Appl Phys, 1952, 23, 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rabinowicz E. Adhesive wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhushan B and Gupta B. Handbook of Tribology. Section 3.3. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santavirta S, Konttinen YT, Lappalainen R, Anttila A, Goodman SB, Lind M, Smith L, Takagi M, Gdmez-Barrena E, Nordsletten L, and Xu J-W. Materials in total joint replacement, Current Orthopaedics, 1998, 12, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurtz SM, Muratoglu OK, Evans M, and Edidin AA. Advances in the processing, sterilization, and crosslinking of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene for total joint arthroplasty. Biomaterials, 1999, 20: 1659–1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li S and Burstein AH. Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. The material and its use in total hip joint implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1994, 76: 1080–1090.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klapperich C, Komvopoulos K, and Pruitt L. Tribological properties and microstructure evolution of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. Trans ASME, 1999, 121: 394–402.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKellop H, Clarke IC, Markolf KL, and Amstutz HC. Wear characteristics of UHMW polyethylene: a method for accurately measuring extremely low wear rates, J Biomed Mater Res, 1978, 12: 895–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chiesa R, Tanzi MC, Alfonsi S, Paracchini L, Moscatelli M, and Cigada A. Enhanced wear performance of highly crosslinked UHMWPE for artificial joints. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2000, 50: 381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buford A and Goswami T. Review of wear mechanisms in hip implants: Paper I – General. Mater Design, 2004, 25: 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buford A and Goswami T. Review of wear mechanisms in hip implants: Paper II – ceramics IG004712. Mater Design, 2004, 25: 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Daly BM and Yin J. Subsurface oxidation of polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res, 1998, 42: 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldman M, Lee M, Gronsky R, and Pruitt L. Oxidation of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene characterized by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry. J Biomed Mater Res, 1997, 37: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee CS, Yoo SH, and Jho JY, Mechanical properties of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene irradiated with gamma rays. Macromol Res, 2004, 12: 112–118.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rose RM, Goldfarb EV, Ellis E, and Crugnola AN. Radiation sterilization and the wear rate of polyethylene. J Orthop Res, 1984, 2: 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goldman M and Pruitt L. Comparison of the effects of gamma radiation and low temperature hydrogen peroxide gas plasma sterilization on the molecular structure, fatigue resistance, and wear behavior of UHMWPE. J Biomed Mater Res, 1998, 40: 378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McKellop H, Shen F-W, Lu B, Campbell P, and Salovey R. Effect of sterilization method and other modifications on the wear resistance of acetabular cups made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. J Bone Joint Surg, 2000, 82: 1708–1725.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maher SA, Furman BD, Babalola OM, Cottrell JM, and Wright TM. Effect of crosslinking, remelting, and aging on UHMWPE damage in a linear experimental wear model. J Orthop Res, 2007, 25: 849–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bracco P, Brunella V, Luda MP, Zanetti M, and Costa L, Radiation-induced crosslinking of UHMWPE in the presence of co-agents: chemical and mechanical characterisation, Polymer, 2005, 46: 10648–10657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wright TM and Bartel DL. The problem of surface damage in polyethylene total knee components. Clin Orthop, 1986, 205: 67–74.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wright TM, Astion DJ, Bansal M, Rimnac CM, Green T, Insall JN, and Robinson RP. Failure of carbon fiber-reinforced polyethylene total knee-replacement components. A report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg A, 1988, 70: 926–932.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wright TM, Rimnac CM, Faris PM, and Bansal M. Analysis of surface damage in retrieved carbon fiber-reinforced and plain polyethylene tibial components from posterior stabilized total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg A, 1988, 70: 1312–1319.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Heisel C, Silva M, Dela Rosa MA, and Schmalzried TP. Short-term in vivo wear of cross-linked polyethylene. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004, 86: 748–751.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z, Shahrdar C, Sirianni L, Boutary M, and Yun A. Clinical performance of a durasul highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liner for total hip arthroplasty at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2005, 87: 1816–1821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Martell JM, Verner JJ, and Incavo SJ. Clinical performance of a highly cross-linked polyethylene at two years in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized prospective trial. J Arthroplasty, 2003, 18: 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Steinberg DR and Steinberg ME. The early history of arthroplasty in the United States. Clin. Orthop Relat Res, 2000, 374: 55–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rieker CB, Köttig P, Schön R, Windler M, and Wyss UP. Clinical wear performance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, in Jacobs JJ and Craig TL, ed. Alternative Bearing Surfaces in Total Joint Replacement, ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 1998.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rahaman MN, Yao A, Bal BS, Garino JP, and Ries MD. Ceramics for prosthetic hip and knee joint replacement. J Am Ceram Soc, 2007, 90: 1965–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boutin P, Christel P, Dorlot JM, Meunier A, de Roquancourt A, Blanquaert D, Herman S, Sedel L, and Witvoet J. The use of dense alumina-alumina ceramic combination in total hip replacement, J Biomed Mater Res, 1988, 22: 1203–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hutchings IM, ed. Friction, Lubrication and Wear of Artificial Joints, Professional Engineering Publishing Ltd.: Bury St. Edmunds, UK, 2003.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sato T, Ohtaki S, Endo T, and Shimada M. Science and technology of zirconia. Advances in Ceramics. American Ceramic Society: Westerville, OH, 1988.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Affatato S, Frigo M, and Toni A. An in vitro investigation of diamond-like carbon as a femoral head coating. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater), 2000, 53: 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dearnaley PA. A review of metallic, ceramic and surface treated metals used for bearing surfaces in human joint replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng, 1999, 213-H: 107–135.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Enke K, Dimigen H, and Hubsch H. Frictional properties of diamond-like carbon layers, Appl Phys Lett, 1980, 36: 291–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pharr GM, Callahan DL, McAdams SD, Tsui TY, Anders S, Anders A, Ager JW, Brown IG, Bhatia CS, Silva SR P, and Robertson J. Hardness, elastic modulus, and structure of very hard carbon films produced by cathodic-arc deposition with substrate pulse-biasing. Appl Phys Lett, 1996, 68: 779–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ronkainen H, Varjus S, Koskinen J, and Holmberg K. Differentiating the tribological performance of hydrogenated and hydrogen-free DLC coatings. Wear, 2001, 249: 260–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Holmberg K and Mathews A. Coatings tribology: A concept, critical aspects, and future directions, Thin Solid Films, 1994, 253: 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Collins CB, Davanloo F, Lee TJ, Park H, and You JH. Noncrystalline films with the chemistry, bonding, and properties of diamond. J Vac Sci Technol B, 1993, 11: 1936–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schneider D, Schwarz T, Scheibe HJ, and Panzner M. Non-destructive evaluation of diamond and diamond-like carbon films by laser induced surface acoustic waves. Thin Solid Films, 1997, 295: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Erdemir A, Bindal C, Pagan J, and Wilbur P. Characterization of transfer layers on surfaces sliding against diamond-like hydrocarbon films in dry nitrogen. Surf Coatings Technol, 1995, 76–77, 559–563.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Liu Y, Erdemir A, and Meletis EI. An investigation of the relationship between graphitization and frictional behavior of DLC coatings, Surf Coatings Technol, 1996, 86: 564–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lappalainen R, Heinonen H, Anttila A, and Santavirta S. Some relevant issues related to the use of amorphous diamond coatings for medical applications. Diamond Rel Mater, 1998, 7: 482–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dearnaley G and Mccabe A. Bioapplications of diamond-like carbon coatings. 4th World Biomater Cong, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sheeja D, Tay BK, Lau SP, and Nung LN. Tribological characterization of diamond-like carbon coatings on Co-Cr-Mo alloy for orthopaedic applications. Sur Coatings Technol, 2001, 146: 410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Morshed MM, McNamara BP, Cameron DC, and Hashmi MSJ, Effect of surface treatment on the adhesion of DLC film on 316L stainless steel. Surf Coatings Technol, 2003, 163: 541–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schwan J, Ulrich S, Theel T, Roth H, Ehrhardt H, Becker P, and Silva SRP. Stress-induced formation of high-density amorphous carbon thin films. J Appl Phys, 1997, 82: 6024–6030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Morrison ML, Buchanan RA, Liaw PK, Berry CJ, Brigmon R, Riester L, Jin C, and Narayan RJ. Electrochemical and antimicrobial properties of diamond-like carbon-metal composite films. Diamond Related Mater, 2006, 15: 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bell BF, Scholvin D, Jin C, and Narayan RJ. Pulsed laser deposition of hydroxyapatite-diamond-like carbon multilayer films and their adhesion aspects. J Adhesion Sci Technol, 2006, 18: 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunming Jin
    • 1
  • Wei Wei
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations