Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:40:11.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aromatic Thermosetting Copolyester (ATSP)/UHMWPE Blends with Improved Wear Properties and Biocompatibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Yongqing Huang  and
James Economy
Yongqing Huang
Affiliation:
[email protected], DuPont CR&D, BCS&E, Experimental Station E328, Wilmington, DE, 19880, United States
James Economy
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, MS&E, Urbana, IL, 16801, United States
Get access

Abstract

Despite the recognized success and worldwide acceptance of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) for total joint arthroplasty, the generation of UHMWPE wear debris from the articulating surface is of major concern and limits the longevity of the artificial joint device. Blends of UHMWPE with an aromatic thermosetting copolyester (ATSP) at 50:50 volume ratio using poly(ethylene-co-acrylic acid) (PEA) as a compatibilizer were developed to address this problem. The amount of PEA was 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 weight percent of the weight of ATSP, respectively. The wear properties of these blends were evaluated by a pin-on-disk wear test in which an ASTM F-75 cobalt-chromium alloy disk was chosen as a counterface and sterile filtered bovine serum diluted in deionized water to 75% (volume) was used as a lubricant. The wear tests from 0.2 to 3 million cycles showed that UHMWPE/ATSP blend with 10 wt% PEA had average weight loss smaller than UHMWPE and comparable to crosslinked UHMWPE. The wear debris study indicated that UHMWPE/ATSP blend with 10 wt% PEA created a smaller size percentage of the wear debris particles in the biologically active range than UHMWPE and crosslinked UHMWPE. The direct-contact cytotoxicity tests showed that ATSP and UHMWPE/ATSP blend with 10 wt% PEA were not toxic.

Keywords

tribologyblendbiomaterial
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1063: Symposium OO – Solids at the Biological Interface , 2007 , 1063-OO09-09
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Green, T.R., Fisher, J., Stone, M., Wroblewski, B.M. and Ingham, E., Biomaterials 19 (24), 2297–302 (1998).Google Scholar
2. Ingram, J.H., Stone, M., Fisher, J. and Ingham, E., Biomaterials 25(17), 3511–3522 (2004).Google Scholar
3. Matthews, J.B., Besong, A.A., Green, T.R., Stone, M.H., Wroblewski, B.M., Fisher, J. and Ingham, E., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 52(2), 296–307 (2000).Google Scholar
4. Baker, D.A., Bellare, A. and Pruitt, L., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part: A. 66A(1), 146–154 (2003).Google Scholar
5. Krzypow, D.J. and Rimnac, C.M., Biomaterials 21(20), 2081–2087 (2000).Google Scholar
6. Lopez, A.D., Master Thesis, University of Illinois, 1999.Google Scholar
7. Frich, D., Goranov, K., Schneggenburger, L. and Economy, J., Macromolecules 29(24), 7734–7739 (1996).Google Scholar
8. Xu, K., Econmy, J. and Shannon, M.A., Int. J. Microcircuits and Electronic Packaging 23(1), 78–84 (2000).Google Scholar
9. Huang, Y. and Economy, J., Wear 262(7-8), 943–948 (2007).Google Scholar
10. Scott, M., Widding, K. and Jani, S., Wear 250–251(Pt. 2), 1213–1217 (2001).Google Scholar