Finite element simulation of cement-bone interface micromechanics: A comparison to experimental results
Corresponding Author
Dennis Janssen
Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. T: +31-24-36-16959; F: +31-24-35-40555.Search for more papers by this authorKenneth A. Mann
SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Search for more papers by this authorNico Verdonschot
Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Laboratory for Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Dennis Janssen
Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. T: +31-24-36-16959; F: +31-24-35-40555.Search for more papers by this authorKenneth A. Mann
SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Search for more papers by this authorNico Verdonschot
Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Laboratory for Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Recently, experiments were performed to determine the micromechanical behavior of the cement-bone interface under tension-compression loading conditions. These experiments were simulated using finite element analysis (FEA) to test whether the micromechanical response of the interface could be captured in micromodels. Models were created of experimental specimens based upon microcomputed tomography data, including the complex interdigitated bone-cement morphology and simulated frictional contact at the interface. The models were subjected to a fully reversed tension-compression load, mimicking the experimental protocol. Similar to what was found experimentally, the simulated interface was stiffer in compression than in tension, and the majority of displacement was localized to the cement-bone interface. A weak correlation was found between the FEA-predicted stiffness and the stiffness found experimentally, with average errors of 8 and 30% in tension and compression, respectively. The hysteresis behavior found experimentally was partially reproduced in the simulation by including friction at the cement-bone interface. Furthermore, stress analysis suggested that cement was more at risk of fatigue failure than bone, concurring with the experimental observation that more cracks were formed in the cement than in the bone. The current study provides information that may help explain the load transfer mechanisms taking place at the cement-bone interface. © 2009 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 27:1312–1318, 2009
REFERENCES
- 1 Huiskes R, Verdonschot N, Nivbrant B. 1998. Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355: 103–112.
- 2 Taylor M, Tanner KE, Freeman MA, et al. 1995. Cancellous bone stresses surrounding the femoral component of a hip prosthesis: an elastic-plastic finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 17: 544–550.
- 3 Stolk J, Janssen D, Huiskes R, et al. 2007. Finite element-based preclinical testing of cemented total hip implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 456: 138–147.
- 4 Janssen D, Aquarius R, Stolk J, et al. 2005. Finite-element analysis of failure of the Capital Hip designs. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87: 1561–1567.
- 5 Lennon AB, Britton JR, MacNiocaill RF, et al. 2007. Predicting revision risk for aseptic loosening of femoral components in total hip arthroplasty in individual patients—a finite element study. J Orthop Res 25: 779–788.
- 6 Verdonschot N, Huiskes R. 1997. Cement debonding process of total hip arthroplasty stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 336: 297–307.
- 7 Pérez MA, García-Aznar JM, Doblaré M, et al. 2006. A comparative FEA of the debonding process in different concepts of cemented hip implants. Med Eng Phys 28: 525–533.
- 8 Reggiani B, Cristofolini L, Varini E, et al. 2007. Predicting the subject-specific primary stability of cementless implants during pre-operative planning: preliminary validation of subject-specific finite-element models. J Biomech 40: 2552–2558.
- 9 Spears IR, Pfleiderer M, Schneider E, et al. 2001. The effect of interfacial parameters on cup-bone relative micromotions. A finite element investigation. J Biomech 34: 113–120.
- 10
Lewis G.
1997.
Properties of acrylic bone cement: state of the art review.
J Biomed Mater Res
38:
155–182.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199722)38:2<155::AID-JBM10>3.0.CO;2-C CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 11 Murphy BP, Prendergast PJ. 2002. The relationship between stress, porosity, and nonlinear damage accumulation in acrylic bone cement. J Biomed Mater Res 59: 646–654.
- 12 Davies JP, Harris WH. 1993. Strength of cement-metal interfaces in fatigue: comparison of smooth, porous and precoated specimens. Clin Mater 12: 121–126.
- 13 Mann KA, Bartel DL, Wright TM, et al. 1991. Mechanical characteristics of the stem-cement interface. J Orthop Res 9: 798–808.
- 14 Kaneko TS, Pejcic MR, Tehranzadeh J, et al. 2003. Relationships between material properties and CT scan data of cortical bone with and without metastatic lesions. Med Eng Phys 25: 445–454.
- 15 Kaneko TS, Bell JS, Pejcic MR, et al. 2004. Mechanical properties, density and quantitative CT scan data of trabecular bone with and without metastases. J Biomech 37: 523–530.
- 16 Taddei F, Pancanti A, Viceconti M. 2004. An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med Eng Phys 26: 61–69.
- 17 Arola D, Stoffel KA, Yang DT. 2006. Fatigue of the cement/bone interface: the surface texture of bone and loosening. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 76: 287–297.
- 18 Bean DJ, Convery FR, Woo SL, et al. 1987. Regional variation in shear strength of the bone-polymethylmethacrylate interface. J Arthroplasty 2: 293–298.
- 19 Dohmae Y, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE, et al. 1988. Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 236: 214–220.
- 20 Funk MJ, Litsky AS. 1998. Effect of cement modulus on the shear properties of the bone-cement interface. Biomaterials 19: 1561–1567.
- 21 Kim DG, Miller MA, Mann KA. 2004. Creep dominates tensile fatigue damage of the cement-bone interface. J Orthop Res 22: 633–640.
- 22 Krause WR, Krug W, Miller J. 1982. Strength of the cement-bone interface. Clin Orthop Relat Res 163: 290–299.
- 23 Mann KA, Ayers DC, Werner FW, et al. 1997. Tensile strength of the cement-bone interface depends on the amount of bone interdigitated with PMMA cement. J Biomech 30: 339–346.
- 24 Mann KA, Miller MA, Cleary RJ, et al. 2008. Experimental micromechanics of the cement-bone interface. J Orthop Res 26: 872–879.
- 25 Lotz JC, Gerhart TN, Hayes WC. 1991. Mechanical properties of metaphyseal bone in the proximal femur. J Biomech 24: 317–329.
- 26 Carter DR, Hayes WC. 1976. Fatigue life of compact bone—I. Effects of stress amplitude, temperature and density. J Biomech 9: 27–34.
- 27 Janssen D, Mann KA, Verdonschot N. 2008. Micro-mechanical modeling of the cement-bone interface: The effect of friction, morphology and material properties on the micromechanical response. J Biomech 41: 3158–3163.
- 28 Lucksanasombool P, Higgs WA, Ignat M, et al. 2003. Comparison of failure characteristics of a range of cancellous bone-bone cement composites. J Biomed Mater Res A 64: 93–104.
- 29 Skripitz R, Aspenberg P. 1999. Attachment of PMMA cement to bone: force measurements in rats. Biomaterials 20: 351–356.
- 30 Nagaraja S, Couse TL, Guldberg RE. 2005. Trabecular bone microdamage and microstructural stresses under uniaxial compression. J Biomech 38: 707–716.
- 31 Yeni YN, Zelman EA, Divine GW, et al. 2008. Trabecular shear stress amplification and variability in human vertebral cancellous bone: relationship with age, gender, spine level and trabecular architecture. Bone 42: 591–596.
- 32 Carter DR, Hayes WC. 1977. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59: 954–962.
- 33 Keller TS. 1994. Predicting the compressive mechanical behavior of bone. J Biomech 27: 1159–1168.
- 34 Wirtz DC, Schiffers N, Pandorf T, et al. 2000. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. J Biomech 33: 1325–1330.
- 35 Hou FJ, Lang SM, Hoshaw SJ, et al. 1998. Human vertebral body apparent and hard tissue stiffness. J Biomech 31: 1009–1015.
- 36 Van Rietbergen B, Weinans H, Huiskes R, et al. 1995. A new method to determine trabecular bone elastic properties and loading using micromechanical finite-element models. J Biomech 28: 69–81.
- 37 Pérez MA, Grasa J, García-Aznar JM, et al. 2006. Probabilistic analysis of the influence of the bonding degree of the stem-cement interface in the performance of cemented hip prostheses. J Biomech 39: 1859–1872.
- 38 Verdonschot N, Huiskes R. 1997. The effects of cement-stem debonding in THA on the long-term failure probability of cement. J Biomech 30: 795–802.
- 39 Moreo P, Pérez MA, García-Aznar JM, et al. 2007. Modelling the mechanical behaviour of living bony interfaces. Comp Methods Appl Mech Engrg 196: 3300–3314.
- 40 Rubin PJ, Rakotomanana RL, Leyvraz PF, et al. 1993. Frictional interface micromotions and anisotropic stress distribution in a femoral total hip component. J Biomech 26: 725–739.