Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of bioactive PMMA-based bone cement under load-bearing conditions: an in vivo evaluation and FE simulation

  • Clinical Applications of Biomaterials
  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past, bioactive bone cement was investigated in order to improve the durability of cemented arthroplasties by strengthening the bone-cement interface. As direct bone–cement bonding may theoretically lead to higher stresses within the cement, the question arises, whether polymethylmethacrylate features suitable mechanical properties to withstand altered stress conditions? To answer this question, in vivo experiments and finite element simulations were conducted. Twelve rabbits were divided into two groups examining either bioactive polymethylmethacrylate-based cement with unchanged mechanical properties or commercially available polymethylmethacrylate cement. The cements were tested under load-bearing conditions over a period of 7 months, using a spacer prosthesis cemented into the femur. For the finite element analyses, boundary conditions of the rabbit femur were simulated and analyses were performed with respect to different loading scenarios. Calculations of equivalent stress distributions within the cements were applied, with a completely bonded cement surface for the bioactive cement and with a continuously interfering fibrous tissue layer for the reference cement. The bioactive cement revealed good in vivo bioactivity. In the bioactive cement group two failures (33 %), with complete break-out of the prosthesis occurred, while none in the reference group. Finite element analyses of simulated bioactive cement fixation showed an increase in maximal equivalent stress by 49.2 to 109.4 % compared to the simulation of reference cement. The two failures as well as an increase in calculated equivalent stress highlight the importance of fatigue properties of polymethylmethacrylate in general and especially when developing bioactive cements designated for load-bearing conditions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Webb JC, Spencer RF. The role of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement in modern orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(7):851–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Breusch SJ, Malchau H. What is modern cementing technique? In: The well-cemented total hip arthroplasty—theory and practice. Heidelberg: Springer–Berlin; 2005. p. 146–9.

  3. Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Garellick G, Söderman P. The Swedish total hip replacement register. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A Suppl 2:2–20.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Noble PC, Collier MB, Maltry JA, Kamaric E, Tullos HS. Pressurization and centralization enhance the quality and reproducibility of cement mantles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dohmae Y, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE. Reduction in cement–bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1988;236:214–20.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eisler T, Svensson O, Iyer V, Wejkner B, Schmalholz A, Larsson H, Elmstedt E. Revision total hip arthroplasty using third generation cementing technique. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:974–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goto K, Shinzato S, Fujibayashi S, Tamura J, Kawanabe K, Hasegawa S, Kowalski R, Nakamura T. The biocompatibility and osteoconductivity of a cement containing beta-TCP for use in vertebroplasty. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;78(3):629–37. Sep 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fujita H, Ido K, Matsuda Y, Iida H, Oka M, Kitamura Y, Nakamura T. Evaluation of bioactive bone cement in canine total hip arthroplasty. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;49:273–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsuda Y, Ido K, Nakamura T, Fujita H, Yamamuro T, Oka M, Shibuya T. Prosthetic replacement of the hip in dogs using bioactive bone cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;336:263–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mousa WF, Kobayashi M, Shinzato S, Kamimura M, Neo M, Yoshihara S, Nakamura T. Biological and mechanical properties of PMMA-based bioactive bone cements. Biomaterials. 2000;21(21):2137–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ni GX, Lu WW, Chiu KY, Li ZY, Fong DYT, Luk KDK. Strontium-containing hydroxyapatite (Sr-HA) bioactive cement for primary hip replacement: an in vivo study. J Biomed Mater Res. 2006;77B:409–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shinzato S, Kobayashi M, Mousa WF, Kamimura M, Neo M, Kitamura Y, Kokubo T, Nakamura T. Bioactive polymethyl methacrylate-based bone cement: comparison of glass beads, apatite- and wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic, and hydroxyapatite fillers on mechanical and biological properties. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;51(2):258–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lewis G. Properties of acrylic bone cement: state of the art review. J Biomed Mater Res. (Appl Biomater) 1997;38:155–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jasty M, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR, Haire T, Harris WH. Histomorphological studies of the long-term skeletal responses to well-fixed cemented femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg. 1990;72A:1220–5.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Freeman MAR, Bradley GW, Revell PA. Observation upon the interface between bone and polymethylmethacrylate cement. J Bone Joint Surg 1982;64B:489–93.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Harper EJ. Bioactive bone cements. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H. 1998;212:113–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kenny SM, Buggy M. Bone cements and fillers: a review. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003;14(11):923–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heikkila JT, Aho AJ, Kangasniemi I, Yli-Urpo A. Polymethylmethacrylate composites: disturbed bone formation at the surface of bioactive glass and hydroxyapatite. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1755–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hennig W, Blencke BA, Brömer H, Deutscher KK, Gross A, Ege W. Investigations with bioactivated polymethylmethacrylate. J Biomed Mater Res. 1979;13:89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Okada Y, Kobayashi M, Neo M, Kokubo T, Nakamura T. Ultrastructure of the interface between bioactive composite and bone: comparison of apatite and wollastonite containing glass–ceramic filler with hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate fillers. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;57:101–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Senaha Y, Nakamura T, Tamura J, Kawanabe K, Iida H, Yamamuro T. Intercalary replacement of canine femora using a new bioactive bone cement. J Bone Joint Surg 1996;78B:26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kawai T, Ohtsuki C, Kamitakahara M, Miyazaki T, Tanihara M, Sakaguchi Y, Konagaya S. Coating of an apatite layer on polyamide films containing sulfonic groups by a biomimetic process. Biomaterials. 2004;25(19):4529–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kokubo T, Hanakawa M, Kawashita M, Minoda M, Beppu T, Miyamoto T, Nakamura T. Apatite formation on non-woven fabric of carboxymethylated chitin in SBF. Biomaterials. 2004;25(18):4485–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vorndran E, Spohn N, Nies B, Rössler S, Storch S, Gbureck U. Mechanical properties and drug release behavior of bioactivated PMMA cements. J Biomater Appl. 2012;26(5):581–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolf-Brandstetter C, Roessler S, Storch S, Hempel U, Gbureck U, Nies B, Bierbaum S, Scharnweber D. Physicochemical and cell biological characterization of PMMA bone cements modified with additives to increase bioactivity. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101(4):599–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fottner A, Nies B, Kitanovic D, Steinbrück A, Hausdorf J, Mayer-Wagner S, Pohl U, Jansson V. In vivo evaluation of bioactive PMMA-based bone cement with unchanged mechanical properties in a load-bearing model on rabbits. J Biomater Appl. 2015;30(1):30–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hori RY, Lewis JL. Mechanical properties of the fibrous tissue found at the bone–cement interface following total joint replacement. J Biomed Mater Res. 1982;16:911–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hayashi K, Uenoyama K, Matsuguchi M, Nakagawa S, Sugioka Y. The affinity of bone to hydroxyapatite and alumina in experimentally induced osteoporosis. J Arthroplasty. 1989;4:257–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuehn KD. Bone cements, up-to-date comparison of physical and chemical properties of commercial materials. Springer, Berlin, 2000.

  30. Bachtar F, Chen X, Hisada T. Finite element contact analysis of the hip joint. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2006;44(8):643–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, Duda GN. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech. 2001;34(7):859–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shinzato S, Nakamura T, Tamura J, Kokubo T, Kitamura Y. Bioactive bone cement: effects of phosphoric ester monomer on mechanical properties and osteoconductivity. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;56(4):571–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. De Santis R1, Mollica F, Ambrosio L, Nicolais L, Ronca D. Dynamic mechanical behavior of PMMA based bone cements in wet environment. Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003;14(7):583–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Janssen D, van Aken J, Scheerlinck T, Verdonschot N. Finite element analysis of the effect of cementing concepts on implant stability and cement fatigue failure. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(3):319–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pérez MA, García-Aznar JM, Doblaré M. Does increased bone–cement interface strength have negative consequences for bulk cement integrity? A finite element study. Ann Biomed Eng. 2009;37(3):454–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuehn KD, Ege W, Gopp U. Acrylic bone cements: mechanical and physical properties. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36(1):29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the research Grant (01 EZ 0611) of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). This study was part of the dissertation of Mr. Denis Kitanovic. We also acknowledge the assistance of Christopher Johnson from the University of Minnesota.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital of Munich (LMU), Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, Munich, 81377, Germany

    Andreas Fottner, Denis Kitanovic, Arnd Steinbrück, Susanne Mayer-Wagner, Christian Schröder & Volkmar Jansson

  2. InnoTERE GmbH, Pharmapark Radebeul, Meissner Str. 191, Radebeul, 01445, Germany

    Berthold Nies & Sascha Heinemann

  3. Walter Brendel Center of Experimental Medicine, Marchioninistr. 27, Munich, 81377, Germany

    Ulrich Pohl

Authors
  1. Andreas Fottner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Berthold Nies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denis Kitanovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arnd Steinbrück
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susanne Mayer-Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian Schröder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sascha Heinemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ulrich Pohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Volkmar Jansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Fottner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fottner, A., Nies, B., Kitanovic, D. et al. Performance of bioactive PMMA-based bone cement under load-bearing conditions: an in vivo evaluation and FE simulation. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 27, 138 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-016-5754-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-016-5754-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation