Advertisement

Science China Materials

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 593–606 | Cite as

Mechanical and corrosion properties of partially degradable bone screws made of pure iron and stainless steel 316L by friction welding

  • Ahmad Kafrawi Nasution
  • Mokhamad Fakhrul Ulum
  • Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Kadir
  • Hendra Hermawan
Articles
  • 140 Downloads

Abstract

This paper reports a series of in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo mechanical and corrosion studies of pin and screw prototype made of friction welded pure iron and 316L type stainless steel aiming to evaluate the applicability of the partially removable bone screws. Results showed that the pin possesses bending, tensile and torsional strengths of 1706±147, 666±7 and 0.34±0.03 MPa, respectively. The pin degraded at an average weight loss rate of 17.15×10−5 g cm−2 day−1 and released Fe ions at an average concentration of 2.38 ppm. Plastic deformation induced by torsion increased the corrosion rate of the pin from 0.0014 to 0.0137 mm year−1. The maximum pull-out load of the screw prototypes was 3800 N with a calculated failure strength by shear load equal to 22.2 kN which is higher than the strength of the cortical bone. Detailed analysis of the rat’s blood cells during 60 days of the pin implantation indicated a normal response with low neutrophils/ lymphocytes ratio of 0.3‒0.5. Iron ion concentration in the rat’s blood slightly increased from 55 to 61 ppm without affecting the tissue recovering and healing phase. Histological evaluation confirmed the presence of macrophage cells as a normal response to the released iron particles around the iron section of the pin.

Keywords

biodegradable metal bone screw friction welding iron stainless steel 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education, the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The authors thank Panjaitan B, Paramitha D, Setiadi MA and Karja NWK for their help during the in vivo animal implantation and histological analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Hidaka S, Gustilo RB. Refracture of bones of the forearm after plate removal. J Bone Joint Surg, 1984, 66: 1241–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bostman O, Pihlajamaki H. Routine implant removal after fracture surgery. J Trauma-Injury Infection Critical Care, 1996, 41: 846–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vos DI, Verhofstad MHJ. Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2013, 39: 327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001, 83: 428–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown OL, Dirschl DR, Obremskey WT. Incidence of hardwarerelated pain and its effect on functional outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthopaedic Trauma, 2001, 15: 271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busam ML, Esther RJ, Obremskey WT. Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthopaedic Surg, 2006, 14: 113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nasution AK, Hermawan H. Degradable biomaterials for temporary medical implants. Adv Struct Mater, 2016, 58: 127–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kah P, Suoranta R, Martikainen J, et al. Techniques for joining dissimilar materials: metals and polymers. Rev Adv Mater Sci, 2014, 36: 152–164Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amancio-Filho ST, dos Santos JF. Joining of polymers and polymer-metal hybrid structures: recent developments and trends. Polym Eng Sci, 2009, 49: 1461–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zheng YF, Gu XN, Witte F. Biodegradable metals. Mater Sci Eng-R-Rep, 2014, 77: 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Staiger MP, Pietak AM, Huadmai J, et al. Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review. Biomaterials, 2006, 27: 1728–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hort N, Huang Y, Fechner D, et al. Magnesium alloys as implant materials-principles of property design for Mg-RE alloys. Acta Biomater, 2010, 6: 1714–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Windhagen H, Radtke K, Weizbauer A, et al. Biodegradable magnesium-based screw clinically equivalent to titanium screw in hallux valgus surgery: short term results of the first prospective, randomized, controlled clinical pilot study. BioMed Eng OnLine, 2013, 12: 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee JW, Han HS, Han KJ, et al. Long-term clinical study and multiscale analysis of in vivo biodegradation mechanism of Mg alloy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2016, 113: 716–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nasution AK, Murni NS, Sing NB, et al. Partially degradable friction-welded pure iron-stainless steel 316L bone pin. J Biomed Mater Res, 2015, 103: 31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L, Johansson C, et al. Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surgery, 1997, 26: 141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klokkevold PR, Johnson P, Dadgostari S, et al. Early endosseous integration enhanced by dual acid etching of titanium: a torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2001, 12: 350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yerby S, Scott CC, Evans NJ, et al. Effect of cutting flute design on cortical bone screw insertion torque and pullout strength. J Orthopaedic Trauma, 2001, 15: 216–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilmes B, Drescher D. Impact of bone quality, implant type, and implantation site preparation on insertion torques of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 40: 697–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    OrthoMed. Surgical Instruments Product Catalog. 2013Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor D. Scaling effects in the fatigue strength of bones from different animals. J Theor Biol, 2000, 206: 299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Topp T, Müller T, Huss S, et al. Embalmed and fresh frozen human bones in orthopedic cadaveric studies: which bone is authentic and feasible? Acta Orthopaedica, 2012, 83: 543–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kokubo T, Takadama H. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials, 2006, 27: 2907–2915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang T, Cheng J, Zheng YF. In vitro degradation and biocompatibility of Fe-Pd and Fe-Pt composites fabricated by spark plasma sintering. Mater Sci Eng-C, 2014, 35: 43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dey HC, Ashfaq M, Bhaduri AK, et al. Joining of titanium to 304L stainless steel by friction welding. J Mater Proc Tech, 2009, 209: 5862–5870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meshram SD, Mohandas T, Reddy GM. Friction welding of dissimilar pure metals. J Mater Proc Tech, 2007, 184: 330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fukumoto S, Katayama K, Okita K, et al. Small-scale friction welding of similar and dissimilar stainless steels. Quart J Japan Weld Soc, 2009, 27: 99s–103sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang E, Chen H, Shen F. Biocorrosion properties and blood and cell compatibility of pure iron as a biodegradable biomaterial. J Mater Sci-Mater Med, 2010, 21: 2151–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu B, Zheng YF. Effects of alloying elements (Mn, Co, Al, W, Sn, B, C and S) on biodegradability and in vitro biocompatibility of pure iron. Acta Biomater, 2011, 7: 1407–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ulum MF, Nasution AK, Yusop AH, et al. Evidences of in vivo bioactivity of Fe-bioceramic composites for temporary bone implants. J Biomed Mater Res, 2015, 103: 1354–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhu S, Huang N, Xu L, et al. Biocompatibility of pure iron: in vitro assessment of degradation kinetics and cytotoxicity on endothelial cells. Mater Sci Eng-C, 2009, 29: 1589–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Witte F, Kaese V, Haferkamp H, et al. In vivo corrosion of four magnesium alloys and the associated bone response. Biomaterials, 2005, 26: 3557–3563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harandi SE, Hasbullah Idris M, Jafari H. Effect of forging process on microstructure, mechanical and corrosion properties of biodegradable Mg–1Ca alloy. Mater Des, 2011, 32: 2596–2603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krenn MH, Piotrowski WP, Penzkofer R, et al. Influence of thread design on pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurgery-Spine, 2008, 9: 90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang Y, Mori R, Ozoe N, et al. Proximal half angle of the screw thread is a critical design variable affecting the pull-out strength of cancellous bone screws. Clin Biomech, 2009, 24: 781–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ferrara LA, Ryken TC. Screw pullout testing. In An YH, Draughn RA (Eds.). Mechanical Testing of Bone and the Bone-implant Interface. Boca raton-Florida: CRC Press, 2000Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mehta H, Santos E, Ledonio C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of pedicle screw thread differential design in an osteoporotic cadaver model. Clin Biomech, 2012, 27: 234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    DeCoster TA, Heetderks DB, Downey DJ, et al. Optimizing bone screw pullout force. J Orthopaedic Trauma, 1990, 4: 169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Patel PSD, Shepherd DET, Hukins DWL. The effect of screw insertion angle and thread type on the pullout strength of bone screws in normal and osteoporotic cancellous bone models. Med Eng Phys, 2010, 32: 822–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Feerick EM, McGarry JP. Cortical bone failure mechanisms during screw pullout. J Biomechanics, 2012, 45: 1666–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zdero R, Rose S, Schemitsch EH, et al. Cortical screw pullout strength and effective shear stress in synthetic third generation composite femurs. J Biomech Eng, 2007, 129: 289–293Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Asnis SE, Ernberg JJ, Bostrom MPG, et al. Cancellous bone screw thread design and holding power. J Orthopaedic Trauma, 1996, 10: 462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ulum MF, Arafat A, Noviana D, et al. In vitro and in vivo degradation evaluation of novel iron-bioceramic composites for bone implant applications. Mater Sci Eng-C, 2014, 36: 336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kannan G, Terrill TH, Kouakou B, et al. Transportation of goats: effects on physiological stress responses and live weight loss. J Animal Sci, 2000, 78: 1450–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Conz MB, Granjeiro JM, Soares GA. Hydroxyapatite crystallinity does not affect the repair of critical size bone defects. J Appl Oral Sci, 2011, 19: 337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Langton DJ, Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ, et al. The clinical implications of elevated blood metal ion concentrations in asymptomatic patients with MoM hip resurfacings: a cohort study. BMJ Open, 2013, 3: e001541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schmutz P, Quach-Vu N-C, Gerber I. Metallic medical implants: electrochemical characterization of corrosion processes. Electrochem Soc Interf, 2008, 17: 35–40Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Carrodeguas RG, De Aza S. α-Tricalcium phosphate: synthesis, properties and biomedical applications. Acta Biomater, 2011, 7: 3536–3546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Paramitha D, Estuningsih S, Noviana D, et al. Distribution of Febased degradable materials in mice skeletal muscle. Eur Cell Mater, 2013, S5: 55Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmad Kafrawi Nasution
    • 1
  • Mokhamad Fakhrul Ulum
    • 2
  • Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Kadir
    • 3
  • Hendra Hermawan
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringMuhammadiyah University of RiauPekanbaruIndonesia
  2. 2.Faculty of Veterinary MedicineBogor Agricultural UniversityBogorIndonesia
  3. 3.Faculty of Biosciences and Medical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia
  4. 4.Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering & CHU de Québec Research CenterLaval UniversityQuebec CityCanada

Personalised recommendations