Advertisement

Influence of multiwall carbon nanotube functionality and loading on mechanical properties of PMMA/MWCNT bone cements

  • Ross Ormsby
  • Tony McNally
  • Christina Mitchell
  • Nicholas Dunne
Article

Abstract

Poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) bone cement—multi walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) nanocomposites with weight loadings ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 wt% were prepared. The MWCNTs investigated were unfunctionalised, carboxyl and amine functionalised MWCNTs. Mechanical properties of the resultant nanocomposite cements were characterised as per international standards for acrylic resin cements. These mechanical properties were influenced by the type and wt% loading of MWCNT used. The morphology and degree of dispersion of the MWCNTs in the PMMA matrix at different length scales were examined using field emission scanning electron microscopy. Improvements in mechanical properties were attributed to the MWCNTs arresting/retarding crack propagation through the cement by providing a bridging effect and hindering crack propagation. MWCNTs agglomerations were evident within the cement microstructure, the degree of these agglomerations was dependent on the weight fraction and functionality of MWCNTs incorporated into the cement.

Keywords

Compressive Strength Fracture Toughness PMMA Bone Cement Compressive Modulus 
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.

List of symbols

KIC

Critical stress intensity factor (Pa-m1/2).

Fmax

Maximum load at failure (N).

Ym

Minimum value of the normalised stress intensity factor coefficient, which depends only on the geometry of the test specimen

D

Diameter of specimen (m)

W

Length of specimen (m)

Notes

Aknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support from Nanocyl S.A., Belgium, Lucite International Ltd., UK, and the Department of Education and Learning NI (DEL) for funding.

References

  1. 1.
    Kuehn KD, Ege W, Gopp U. Acrylic bone cements: composition and properties. J Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36(1):17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marrs B, Andrews R, Rantell T, Pienkowski D. Augmentation of acrylic bone cement with multiwall carbon nanotubes. J Biomed Mater Res. 2006;77(2):269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lewis G. Relative influence of composition and viscosity of acrylic bone cement on its apparent fracture toughness. J Biomed Mater Eng. 2000;10(1):1–11.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McNally T, Potschke P, Halley P, Murphy M, Martin D, Bell SEJ, et al. Polyethylene multiwall carbon nanotube composites by melt blending. J Polymer. 2005;46:8222–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McClory C, McNally T, Brennan G, Erskine J. Thermosetting polyurethane multiwall carbon nanotube composites. J Appl Polym Sci. 2007;105:1003–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ormsby R, McNally T, Mitchell CA, Dunne N. Incorporation of multiwall carbon nanotubes to acrylic based bone cements: effects on mechanical and thermal properties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2009.10.002.
  7. 7.
    Marrs B. Carbon nanotube augmentation of a bone cement polymer. PhD Thesis. 2007; University of Kentucky, US.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright DD, Lautenschlager EP, Gilbert JL. Bending and fracture toughness of woven self-reinforced composite poly(methyl methacrylate). J Biomed Mater Res A. 1998;36(4):441–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    British standard for implants for surgery: acrylic resin cements. BS ISO 5833. 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barker LM. A simplified method for measuring plane strain fracture toughness. J Eng Fract Mech. 1977;9:361–9.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ryan AK, Mitchell CA, Orr JF. Fracture mechanics analysis of the dentine-luting cement interface. Proc Inst Mech Eng H: J Eng Med. 2002;216(4):271–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin CP. Structure-property-function relationships in dentine enamel complex and tooth restoration interface. PhD thesis. Department of Oral Science, University of Minnesota, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Topoleski LD, Ducheyne P, Cuckler JM. A fractographic analysis of in vivo poly(methyl methacrylate) bone cement failure mechanisms. J. Biomed. Mat. Res. 1990;24:135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morscher EW, Wirz D. Current state of cement fixation in THR. J. Acta Orthop Belg. 2002;68(1):1–12.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gojny FH, Nastalczyka J, Roslaniec Z, Schulte K. Surface modified multiwall carbon nanotubes in CNT/epoxy-composites. Chem Phys Lett. 2003;370:820–4.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pande S, Mathur RB, Singh BP, Dhami TL. Synthesis and characterization of multiwall carbon nanotubes-polymethyl methacrylate composites prepared by in situ polymerization method. J. Poly. Comp. 2008, Published Online: 11 Sep 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ross Ormsby
    • 1
  • Tony McNally
    • 1
  • Christina Mitchell
    • 2
  • Nicholas Dunne
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringQueen’s University of BelfastBelfastUK
  2. 2.School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical SciencesQueen’s University of BelfastBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations