Reducing Wear Using the Ceramic Surface on Oxidized Zirconium Heads
Wear-related complications remain a major cause of revisions following total hip arthroplasty. Oxide ceramic modular heads were introduced as an alternative to metallic cobalt-chromium (CoCr) heads because their surfaces are more abrasion-resistant and produce less friction, thereby reducing abrasive and adhesive wear of the opposing polyethylene. The use of oxide ceramic heads can reduce wear by 25 to 50% [2, 3, 4, 5]. Oxidized zirconium (OxZr) was introduced as a way to provide these advantages in wear performance without the risks associated with brittle fracture of monolithic ceramics. Thermally driven oxygen diffusion transforms just the metallic zirconium alloy surface into a durable, stable, low-friction oxide[7, 8, 9]. Thus, OxZr provides the benefits of ceramic wear behavior along with the mechanical properties of metal [10, 11]. This study assessed the wear properties of OxZr and CoCr heads against highly crosslinked polyethylene (XPE) that was irradiated at 10 Mrad and melt-annealed, as well as non-crosslinked polyethylene (NPE) that was not irradiated.
KeywordsWear Debris Adhesive Wear Ceramic Surface Wear Performance Volumetric Wear
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Schmalzried TP, Scott DL, Zahiri, CA, Dorey FJ, Sanford WM, Kern L, Humphrey W (1998) Variables affecting wear in vivo: analysis of 1,080 hips with computer-assisted technique. Trans Orthop Res Soc 23:275Google Scholar
- 3.Sychterz CJ, Moon KH, Hashimoto AY, Terefenko KM, Engh CA, Bauer TW (1996) Wear of polyethylene cups in total hip arthroplasty a study of specimens retrieved post mortem. J Bone Joint Surg 78-A:l193–1200Google Scholar
- 4.Oonishi H, Takayaka Y, Clarke IC, Jung, H (1992) Comparative wear studies of 28-mm ceramic and stainless steel total hip joints over 2 to 7 year period. J Long-Term Effects Med Implants 2:37–47Google Scholar
- 7.Benezra V, Mangin S, Treska M, Spector M, Hunter G, Hobbs LW (1999) Microstructural investigation of the oxide scale on Zr-2.5Nb and its interface with the alloy substrate. In: Neenan T, Marcolongo M, Valentini RF (eds) Biomédical Materials. Materials Research Society, Warrendale, PA, Symp Proc 550, pp 337–342Google Scholar
- 8.Hunter G, Long M (2000) Abrasive wear of oxidized Zr-2.5Nb, CoCrMo, and Ti-6AI-4V against bone cement. Trans Sixth World Biomater Cong: 835Google Scholar
- 9.Hunter G (2001) Adhesion testing of oxidized zirconium. Trans Soc Biomater 24:540Google Scholar
- 10.Sprague J, Aldinger P, Tsai S, Hunter G, Thomas R, Salehi A (2003) Mechanical behavior of zirconia, alumina, and oxidized zirconium modular heads. In: Brown S, Clarke IC, Gustafson A (eds) ISTA 2003. International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, Birmingham, AL, vol 2: in pressGoogle Scholar
- 11.Tsai S, Spargue J, Hunter G, Thomas R, Salehi A (2001) Mechanical testing and finite element analysis of oxidized zirconium femoral components. Trans Soc Biomater 24:163Google Scholar
- 15.Jasty M, Bragdon CR, Lee K, Hanson A, Harris WH (1994) Surface damage to cobalt-chrome femoral head prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg 76-B:73–77Google Scholar
- 16.ISO/DIS 14242-1: 1999-06 (1997) Implants for surgery — wear of total hip-joint prostheses — Part 1: loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines and corresponding environmental conditions for test. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 19.FurmanBD, Bhattacharyya S, Hernoux C, Ranawat CS, Li S (2001) Independent evaluation of wear properties of commercially available cross linked UHMWPE. Trans Soc Biomater 24:33Google Scholar
- 21.Morrison M, Scott M, Mishra SR, Jani S (2002) Determination of UHMWPE wear particle volume using atomic force microscopy. Trans Soc Biomater 25:296Google Scholar