Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computational Tailoring of Orthopaedic Biomaterials: Design Principles and Aiding Tools

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Biomaterials in Orthopaedics and Bone Regeneration

Part of the book series: Materials Horizons: From Nature to Nanomaterials ((MHFNN))

Abstract

Biomaterials are essential to medical device production, play a critical role in health care and affect the quality and longevity of human life. The ever-increasing demand for the use of medical devices and implants offering improved function and ease of life makes the development of new biomaterials a challenging task. The design and development of biomaterials are quite a complicated procedure, which involves the manipulation of composition and structure to combine multiple mechanical and biological properties, sometimes even conflicting, in the desired biomaterial, simultaneously. The use of computational techniques can help in the evaluation of designed materials without the need to make any physical object and spend too much money, and more importantly reduce the risks to the development efforts. This chapter overviews the design of orthopaedic biomaterials for total hip and knee replacements, and bone scaffolds. The computational methods involved in their design scenarios are presented, and some efficient tools are introduced to aid in the development of more reliable and optimal biomaterials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Banerjee S et al (2014) Emerging technologies in arthroplasty: additive manufacturing. J Knee Surg 27(3):185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Huang Y et al (2015) Additive manufacturing: current state, future potential, gaps and needs, and recommendations. J Manuf Sci Eng 137(1):014001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kanouté P et al (2009) Multiscale methods for composites: a review. Arch Comput Methods Eng 16(1):31–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boccaccio A et al (2018) A computational approach to the design of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Advances in bionanomaterials. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Kohn J (2004) New approaches to biomaterials design. Nat Mater 3(11):745–747

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nygren M et al (2009) Dual-sided joint implant having a wear resistant surface and a bioactive surface. In: International application published under the patent cooperation treaty (PCT), W.I.P. Organization, Editor. Google Patents, US

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bahraminasab M et al (2012) Aseptic loosening of femoral components—a review of current and future trends in materials used. Mater Des 42:459–470

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Melvin JS et al (2014) Early failures in total hip arthroplasty—a changing paradigm. J Arthroplasty 29(6):1285–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown NM et al (2015) Extensor mechanism allograft reconstruction for extensor mechanism failure following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 97(4):279–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Morrey MC (2015) Revision total knee arthroplasty: management of periprosthetic femur fracture around total knee arthroplasty. Complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–142

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nishii T et al (2015) Fluctuation of cup orientation during press-fit insertion: a possible cause of malpositioning. J Arthroplasty 30(10):1847–1851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liddle AD, Rodríguez-Merchán EC (2015) Periprosthetic fractures. Total knee arthroplasty. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Jiranek WA et al (2015) Surgical treatment of prosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee: changing paradigms? J Arthroplasty 30(6):912–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bahraminasab M et al (2013) Aseptic loosening of femoral components-materials engineering and design considerations. Mater Des 44:155–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Katz JN et al (2012) Twelve-year risk of revision after primary total hip replacement in the US Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg 94(20):1825–1832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Marius N et al (2015) Biomaterials view on the complications associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. In: Advanced materials research, vol 1114

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oshkour A et al (2015) Mechanical and physical behaviour of newly developed functionally graded materials and composites of stainless steel 316L with calcium silicate and hydroxyapatite. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 49:321–331

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Doni Z et al (2015) Tribocorrosion behaviour of hot pressed CoCrMo—HAP biocomposites. Tribol Int 91:221–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dehaghani MT, Ahmadian M, Beni BH (2015) Fabrication and characterization of porous Co–Cr–Mo/58S bioglass nano-composite by using NH 4 HCO 3 as space-holder. Mater Des 88:406–413

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel AK, Balani K (2015) Dispersion fraction enhances cellular growth of carbon nanotube and aluminum oxide reinforced ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene biocomposites. Mat Sci Eng C 46:504–513

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bahraminasab M et al (2013) Material tailoring of the femoral component in a total knee replacement to reduce the problem of aseptic loosening. Mater Des 52:441–451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Enab TA, Bondok NE (2013) Material selection in the design of the tibia tray component of cemented artificial knee using finite element method. Mater Des 44:454–460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hedia H et al (2014) A new design of cemented stem using functionally graded materials (FGM). Bio-med Mater Eng 24(3):1575–1588

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mehboob H, Chang S-H (2015) Optimal design of a functionally graded biodegradable composite bone plate by using the Taguchi method and finite element analysis. Compos Struct 119:166–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gupta A, Talha M (2015) Recent development in modeling and analysis of functionally graded materials and structures. Progr Aerosp Sci 79:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Oshkour A et al (2015) Parametric study of radial functionally graded femoral prostheses with different geometries. Meccanica 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  27. Oshkour AA et al (2013) Finite element analysis on longitudinal and radial functionally graded femoral prosthesis. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 29(12):1412–1427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Oshkour AA et al (2015) Effect of geometrical parameters on the performance of longitudinal functionally graded femoral prostheses. Artif Organs 39(2):156–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor M, Barrett DS, Deffenbaugh D (2012) Influence of loading and activity on the primary stability of cementless tibial trays. J Orthop Res 30(9):1362–1368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Willing R, Kim IY (2009) Three dimensional shape optimization of total knee replacements for reduced wear. Struct Multi Optim 38(4):405–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Abdelgaied A et al (2011) Computational wear prediction of artificial knee joints based on a new wear law and formulation. J Biomech 44(6):1108–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mattei L, Di Puccio F, Ciulli E (2013) A comparative study of wear laws for soft-on-hard hip implants using a mathematical wear model. Tribol Int 63:66–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Netter J et al (2015) Prediction of wear in crosslinked polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Lubricants 3(2):381–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jahan A, Bahraminasab M (2015) Multicriteria decision analysis in improving quality of design in femoral component of knee prostheses: influence of interface geometry and material. In: Advances in materials science and engineering

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bahraminasab M et al (2014) Multi-objective design optimization of functionally graded material for the femoral component of a total knee replacement. Mater Des 53:159–173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bahraminasab M et al (2014) On the influence of shape and material used for the femoral component pegs in knee prostheses for reducing the problem of aseptic loosening. Mater Des 55:416–428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Van Lenthe GH et al (2002) Stemmed femoral knee prostheses: effects of prosthetic design and fixation on bone loss. Acta Orthop 73(6):630–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Completo A et al (2009) Relationship of design features of stemmed tibial knee prosthesis with stress shielding and end-of-stem pain. Mater Des 30(4):1391–1397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Taylor M, Prendergast PJ (2015) Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices: where are we now and what are the opportunities? J Biomech 48(5):767–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rezaei F et al (2015) Carbon/PEEK composite materials as an alternative for stainless steel/titanium hip prosthesis: a finite element study. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gillies RM et al (2007) Adaptive bone remodelling of all polyethylene unicompartmental tibial bearings. ANZ J Surg 77(1–2):69–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Andersen MR, Petersen MM (2015) Adaptive bone remodeling of the femoral bone after tumor resection arthroplasty with an uncemented proximally hydroxyapatite-coated stem. J Clin Densitometry 19(2):202–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pérez M et al (2014) Bone remodeling in the resurfaced femoral head: Effect of cement mantle thickness and interface characteristics. Med Eng Phys 36(2):185–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mukherjee K, Gupta S (2015) Bone ingrowth around porous-coated acetabular implant: a three-dimensional finite element study using mechanoregulatory algorithm. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  45. Waide V et al (2004) Modelling the fibrous tissue layer in cemented hip replacements: experimental and finite element methods. J Biomech 37(1):13–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Puthumanapully PK, Browne M (2011) Tissue differentiation around a short stemmed metaphyseal loading implant employing a modified mechanoregulatory algorithm: a finite element study. J Orthop Res 29(5):787–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Miramini S et al (2015) Computational simulation of the early stage of bone healing under different configurations of locking compression plates. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 18(8):900–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Miramini S et al (2015) The relationship between interfragmentary movement and cell differentiation in early fracture healing under locking plate fixation. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stolk J et al (2002) Finite element and experimental models of cemented hip joint reconstructions can produce similar bone and cement strains in pre-clinical tests. J Biomech 35(4):499–510

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Coultrup OJ et al (2010) Computational assessment of the effect of polyethylene wear rate, mantle thickness, and porosity on the mechanical failure of the acetabular cement mantle. J Orthop Res 28(5):565–570

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bouziane M et al (2015) Analysis of the behaviour of cracks emanating from bone inclusion and ordinary cracks in the cement mantle of total hip prosthesis. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 37(1):11–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Caouette C et al (2015) Influence of the stem fixation scenario on load transfer in a hip resurfacing arthroplasty with a biomimetic stem. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 45:90–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Van de Groes S, de Waal-Malefijt M, Verdonschot N (2014) Probability of mechanical loosening of the femoral component in high flexion total knee arthroplasty can be reduced by rather simple surgical techniques. Knee 21(1):209–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Abdelgaied A et al (2014) The effect of insert conformity and material on total knee replacement wear. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 228(1):98–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gao L, Dowson D, Hewson RW (2015) Predictive wear modeling of the articulating metal-on-metal hip replacements. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 105(3):497–506

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Bellucci D et al (2011) A new generation of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. In: Advances in science and technology. Trans Tech Publ

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sanz-Herrera J, García-Aznar J, Doblaré M (2009) On scaffold designing for bone regeneration: a computational multiscale approach. Acta Biomater 5(1):219–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Hollister SJ et al (2005) Engineering craniofacial scaffolds. Orthod Craniofac Res 8(3):162–173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4(7):518–524

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ (2006) Prediction of the optimal mechanical properties for a scaffold used in osteochondral defect repair. Tissue Eng 12(9):2509–2519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hutmacher DW, Sittinger M, Risbud MV (2004) Scaffold-based tissue engineering: rationale for computer-aided design and solid free-form fabrication systems. Trends Biotechnol 22(7):354–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Chu T-MG et al (2002) Mechanical and in vivo performance of hydroxyapatite implants with controlled architectures. Biomaterials 23(5):1283–1293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hollister SJ et al (2000) An image-based approach for designing and manufacturing craniofacial scaffolds. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 29(1):67–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Feinberg SE et al (2001) Image-based biomimetic approach to reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint. Cells Tissues Organs 169(3):309–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Dallago M et al (2018) Fatigue and biological properties of Ti-6Al-4V ELI cellular structures with variously arranged cubic cells made by selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 78:381–394

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Sengers BG et al (2007) Computational modelling of cell spreading and tissue regeneration in porous scaffolds. Biomaterials 28(10):1926–1940

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Sanchez-Palencia E, Zaoui A (1987) Homogenization techniques for composite media. In: Homogenization techniques for composite media

    Google Scholar 

  68. Beaupré G, Orr T, Carter D (1990) An approach for time-dependent bone modeling and remodeling—theoretical development. J Orthop Res 8(5):651–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Van Lenthe G, De Waal Malefijt M, Huiskes R (1997) Stress shielding after total knee replacement may cause bone resorption in the distal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79(1):117–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Adachi T et al (2006) Framework for optimal design of porous scaffold microstructure by computational simulation of bone regeneration. Biomaterials 27(21):3964–3972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Sanz-Herrera J, Garcia-Aznar J, Doblare M (2008) A mathematical model for bone tissue regeneration inside a specific type of scaffold. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 7(5):355–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Hollister SJ, Maddox R, Taboas JM (2002) Optimal design and fabrication of scaffolds to mimic tissue properties and satisfy biological constraints. Biomaterials 23(20):4095–4103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Adachi T et al (2001) Trabecular surface remodeling simulation for cancellous bone using microstructural voxel finite element models. J Biomech Eng 123(5):403–409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Sanz-Herrera J, García-Aznar J, Doblaré M (2008) Micro–macro numerical modelling of bone regeneration in tissue engineering. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197(33):3092–3107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Chen Y, Zhou S, Li Q (2011) Microstructure design of biodegradable scaffold and its effect on tissue regeneration. Biomaterials 32(22):5003–5014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Kuehmann C, Olson G (2009) Computational materials design and engineering. Mater Sci Technol 25(4):472–478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Thapa N, Prayson M, Goswami T (2015) Case studies in engineering failure analysis

    Google Scholar 

  78. Santiago A et al (2015) Design of an impulsion prosthetic system for prosthetic foot. In: VI Latin American congress on biomedical engineering CLAIB 2014, Paraná, Argentina 29, 30 and 31 Oct 2014. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  79. Jahan A, Edwards KL, Bahraminasab M (2016) Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of engineering materials in product design. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  80. Alaimo G et al (2017) Multi-objective optimization of nitinol stent design. Med Eng Phys 47:13–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Aherwar A, Singh A, Patnaik A (2016) Study on mechanical and wear characterization of novel Co30Cr4Mo biomedical alloy with added nickel under dry and wet sliding conditions using Taguchi approach. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464420716638112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Curtarolo S et al (2013) The high-throughput highway to computational materials design. Nat Mater 12(3):191–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Tissue Engineering and Applied Cell Sciences, School of Medicine, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

    Marjan Bahraminasab

  2. Institution of Engineering Designers, Courtleigh, Westbury Leigh, Wiltshire, BE13 3TA, UK

    Kevin L. Edwards

Authors
  1. Marjan Bahraminasab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin L. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marjan Bahraminasab .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Beant College of Engineering and Technology, Gurdaspur, Punjab, India

    Preetkanwal Singh Bains

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Beant College of Engineering and Technology, Gurdaspur, Punjab, India

    Sarabjeet Singh Sidhu

  3. Department of Tissue Engineering and Applied Cell Sciences, School of Medicine, Nervous System Stem Cells Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

    Marjan Bahraminasab

  4. School of Mechanical Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, Punjab, India

    Chander Prakash

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bahraminasab, M., Edwards, K.L. (2019). Computational Tailoring of Orthopaedic Biomaterials: Design Principles and Aiding Tools. In: Bains, P., Sidhu, S., Bahraminasab, M., Prakash, C. (eds) Biomaterials in Orthopaedics and Bone Regeneration . Materials Horizons: From Nature to Nanomaterials. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9977-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation