Physico-chemical and thermochemical studies of the hydrolytic conversion of amorphous tricalcium phosphate into apatite

The conversion of amorphous tricalcium phosphate with different hydration ratio into apatite in water at 25 °C has been studied by microcalorimetry and several physical–chemical methods. The hydrolytic transformation was dominated by two strong exothermic events. A fast, relatively weak, wetting process and a very slow but strong heat release assigned to a slow internal rehydration and the crystallization of the amorphous phase into an apatite. The exothermic phenomenon related to the rehydration exceeded the crystalline transformation enthalpy. Rehydration occurred before the conversion of the amorphous phase into apatite and determined the advancement of the hydrolytic reaction. The apatitic phases formed evolved slightly with time after their formation. The crystallinity increased whereas the amount of HPO4 2− ion decreased. These data allow a better understanding of the behavior of biomaterials involving amorphous phases such as hydroxyapatite plasma-sprayed coating

Compressive properties of commercially available polyurethane foams as mechanical models for osteoporotic human cancellous bone

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Polyurethane (PU) foam is widely used as a model for cancellous bone. The higher density foams are used as standard biomechanical test materials, but none of the low density PU foams are universally accepted as models for osteoporotic (OP) bone. The aim of this study was to determine whether low density PU foam might be suitable for mimicking human OP cancellous bone.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Quasi-static compression tests were performed on PU foam cylinders of different lengths (3.9 and 7.7 mm) and of different densities (0.09, 0.16 and 0.32 g.cm^-3), to determine the Young's modulus, yield strength and energy absorbed to yield.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Young's modulus values were 0.08–0.93 MPa for the 0.09 g.cm^-3foam and from 15.1–151.4 MPa for the 0.16 and 0.32 g.cm^-3foam. Yield strength values were 0.01–0.07 MPa for the 0.09 g.cm^-3foam and from 0.9–4.5 MPa for the 0.16 and 0.32 g.cm^-3foam. The energy absorbed to yield was found to be negligible for all foam cylinders.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on these results, it is concluded that 0.16 g.cm^-3PU foam may prove to be suitable as an OP cancellous bone model when fracture stress, but not energy dissipation, is of concern.</p

Effects of a contoured articular prosthetic device on tibiofemoral peak contact pressure: a biomechanical study

Many middle-aged patients are affected by localized cartilage defects that are neither appropriate for primary, nor repeat biological repair methods, nor for conventional arthroplasty. This in vitro study aims to determine the peak contact pressure in the tibiofemoral joint with a partial femoral resurfacing device (HemiCAP®, Arthrosurface Inc., Franklin, MA, USA). Peak contact pressure was determined in eight fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens using a Tekscan sensor placed in the medial compartment above the menisci. A closed loop robotic knee simulator was used to test each knee in static stance positions (5°/15°/30°/45°) with body weight ground reaction force (GRF), 30° flexion with twice the body weight (2tBW) GRF and dynamic knee-bending cycles with body weight GRF. The ground reaction force was adjusted to the living body weight of the cadaver donor and maintained throughout all cycles. Each specimen was tested under four different conditions: Untreated, flush HemiCAP® implantation, 1-mm proud implantation and 20-mm defect. A paired sampled t test to compare means (significance, P ≤ 0.05) was used for statistical analysis. On average, no statistically significant differences were found in any testing condition comparing the normal knee with flush device implantation. With the 1-mm proud implant, statistically significant increase of peak contact pressures of 217% (5° stance), 99% (dynamic knee bending) and 90% (30° stance with 2tBW) compared to the untreated condition was seen. No significant increase of peak contact pressure was evaluated with the 20-mm defect. The data suggests that resurfacing with the HemiCAP® does not lead to increased peak contact pressure with flush implantation. However, elevated implantation results in increased peak contact pressure and might be biomechanically disadvantageous in an in vivo application