4.5 Article

Fretting corrosion of Si3N4 vs CoCrMo femoral heads on Ti-6Al-V trunnions

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 1617-1626

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.24681

关键词

biomaterials; CoCrMo alloy; fretting corrosion; modular taper; Si3N4

资金

  1. SINTX Technologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fretting corrosion at the head-neck taper junction was compared between silicon nitride (Si3N4) and commercially available cobalt chrome (CoCrMo) femoral heads on titanium (Ti-6Al-4V) trunnions. An electrochemical setup was used to capture the fretting currents (characterized by oxide abrasion and repassivation) during cyclic loading. Onset load, pull-off force (disassembly load), short term and long term (1 million cycles) fretting currents were used to compare the fretting corrosion performance between the test group (Si3N4/Ti-6Al-4V) and the control group (CoCrMo/Ti-6Al-4V). Incremental cyclic fretting corrosion tests showed that the Si3N4/Ti-6Al-4V combination had statistically lower (P < .05) average fretting current of 0.189 mu A (SD = 0.114 mu A) compared to 0.685 mu A (SD = 0.630 mu A) for CoCrMo/Ti-6Al-4V for cyclic load of 3200 N. Similarly, for the one million cycle fretting corrosion tests, the Si3N4/Ti-6Al-4V couples had statistically lower (P < .05) average current (0.048 mu A, SD = 0.025 mu A) vs CoCrMo/Ti-6Al-4V couples (0.366 mu A, SD = 0.143 mu A). The Si3N4 heads also had higher onset loads (P < .05) for fretting (vs CoCrMo, 2200 N vs 1740 N) indicating a difference in surface contact mechanics between the two groups. Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectroscopy confirmed material transfer from the trunnions to the heads for both groups tested, and from head to trunnion for the CoCrMo heads. Minimal Si3N4 transfer was noted. The electrochemical, mechanical, and microscopic inspection data supported the hypothesis that Si3N4/Ti-6Al-4Vcombination had better fretting corrosion performance compared to CoCrMo/Ti-6Al-4V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据