Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 266–271 | Cite as

Polyvinyl Siloxane Molds for Nondestructive Surface Feature Metrology of Failed Joint Prostheses

  • Pooja Panigrahi
  • Kevin G. Schwartzman
  • Melinda K. Harman
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • 131 Downloads

Abstract

A nondestructive polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression protocol was developed for studying the surface features on joint prostheses with modular junctions after they have been removed from patients. Analysis of the failed joint prostheses reveals that modular junctions consisting of bore-cone tapers can be the site of in vivo fretting and crevice corrosion. While cone taper surfaces are readily analyzed by non-contact profilometric techniques, bore taper surfaces are inaccessible for direct observation. An indirect repeatable method to analyze these inaccessible surfaces was developed, incorporating a commonly used dental impression polymer to achieve a high-detail negative of the bore taper suitable for profilometric measurements. Compared to the actual bore surface, light-viscosity PVS adequately replicated surface features for statistically similar measurements of metrological mean roughness parameters (Sa, Sq), peak-to-valley height parameters (Sz), shape parameters (Ssk, Sku), and spatial parameters (Sm). Surface features as fine as 2.6 μm in size were reproduced, indicating that this technique is applicable to failure analysis studies involving abrasive wear, adhesive wear, and corrosion pits. This indirect and nondestructive method of surface damage analysis can be broadly applied in many industries requiring analysis of inaccessible surfaces, such as machined bores, inner surfaces of pipes, and large parts incompatible with laboratory metrology equipment.

Keywords

Biomaterials Corrosion failure analysis Implant Nondestructive examination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Clemson University Faculty Start-Up Fund. Explanted prostheses were provided by Jörg Lützner, MD.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Srinivasan, E. Jung, B.R. Levine, Modularity of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 20(4), 214–222 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.B. Mason, Modular augments in revision total knee arthroplasty, in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, 1st edn., ed. by B.V. Bono, R.D. Scott (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2005), pp. 97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.S. Helms, A.S. Greenwald, The rationale and performance of modularity in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedics 28(9), s1113-5 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.D. Bobyn, M. Tanzer, J.J. Krygier, A.R. Dujovne, C.E. Brooks, Concerns with modularity in total hip arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 298, 27–36 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.K. Harman, M. Baleani, K. Juda, M. Viceconti, Repeatable procedure for evaluating taper damage on femoral stems with modular necks. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 99(2), 431–439 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Standard Guide for Assessment of Surface Texture of Non-Porous Biomaterials in Two Dimensions, F2791-09, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 13.02, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Blunt, X.Q. Jiang, Three dimensional measurement of the surface topography of ceramic and metallic orthopaedic joint prostheses. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 11(4), 235–246 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Standard Guide for Characterization of Wear from the Articulating Surfaces in Retrieved Metal-on-Metal and other Hard-on-Hard Hip Prostheses, F2979-14, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 13.02, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T.E. Donovan, W.W. Chee, A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 48(2), 445–470 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.N. Mandikos, Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust. Dent. J. 43(6), 428–434 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dental Elastomeric Impression Material, Section 5.11 Detail Reproduction, ISO 4823-2000, International Standards OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Derrien, G. Le Menn, Evaluation of detail reproduction for three die materials by using scanning electron microscopy and two-dimensional profilometry. J. Prosthet. Dent. 74(1), 1–7 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Delong, M.R. Pintado, C.-C. Ko, J.S. Hodges, W.H. Douglas, Factors influencing optical 3D scanning of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. J. Prothodont. 10(2), 78–85 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A.B. Meireles, E.B. Las Casas, G.C. de Godoy, T.O. de Ornelas, T.P.M. Cornacchia, in Proceedings of the 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering, 24–28 Oct 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil, ABCM, 2011Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Surface Texture: Profile Method—Terms, Definitions and Surface Texture Parameters,ISO 4287:1997, International Standards OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Surface Texture: Profile Method—Metrological Characteristics of Phase Correct Filters, ISO 11562:1996, International Standards OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.M. Rodriguez, R.V. Curtis, D.W. Bartlett, Surface roughness of impression materials and dental stones scanned by non-contacting laser profilometry. Dent. Mater. 25(4), 500–505 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Panagiotidou, J. Meswania, J. Hua, S. Muirhead-Allwood, A. Hart, G. Blunn, Enhanced wear and corrosion in modular tapers in total hip replacement is associated with the contact area and surface topography. J. Orthop. Res. 31(12), 2032–2039 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P.E. Shrout, J.L. Fleiss, Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 86(2), 420–428 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pooja Panigrahi
    • 1
  • Kevin G. Schwartzman
    • 1
  • Melinda K. Harman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Bioengineering, 301 Rhodes Engineering Research CenterClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations