Four Station Knee Simulator Wear Testing Comparing Titanium Niobium Nitride with Cobalt Chrome
Malikian R, Maruthainar K*, Stammers J, Wilding CP and Blunn GW
John Scales Centre for Biomedical Engineering, The Institute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Trust, Brockley Hill,Stanmore, Middlesex, UK
- *Corresponding Author:
- Kunalan Maruthainar
John Scales Centre for Biomedical Engineering
The Institute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Trust
Brockley Hill, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 4LP, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: July 11, 2013; Accepted Date: August 24, 2013; Published Date: August 30, 2013
Citation: Malikian R, Maruthainar K, Stammers J, Wilding CP, Blunn GW (2013) Four Station Knee Simulator Wear Testing Comparing Titanium Niobium Nitride with Cobalt Chrome. J Bioeng Biomed Sci 3: 125.doi: 10.4172/2155-9538.1000125.
Copyright: © 2013 Malikian R, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
A new non-destructive method was applied in order to assess bone integrity. The method is based on measurement of bHypersensitivity to an orthopaedic implant was first published in 1966 and since then, in sensitive patients, is known to cause serious problems in joint replacement surgery. Titanium niobium nitride (TiNbN) can act as a surface coat for knee arthroplasty to “hide” the cobalt chrome (CoCr) femoral component beneath, therefore affording an immunoprivileged state. The aim of this study is to determine the wear properties of titanium niobium nitride against Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) compared to cobalt chrome and to examine the metallic alloy surface
of knee prostheses after loading cycles using a knee simulator. Three TiNbN coated and one CoCr Vanguard total knee femoral components were articulated against standard UHMWPE grade tibial inserts in the Stanmore-Instron knee simulator. Surface roughness, UHMWPE mass, lowest point, surface profiles and volumetric change were measuredevery one million cycles up to five million cycles. After five million cycles the average roughness of the cobalt chromemedial and lateral femoral condyles was over three times that of the TiNbN coated femoral condyles. There was no
obvious difference in weight loss, volume loss or progression of lowest points of the tibial inserts articulating with the
TiNbN coated and the cobalt chrome femoral component. Despite a clear reduction in roughness progression over the
course of this in vitro test, there was no demonstrable improvement in UHMWPE wear measured gravimetrically or by
surface profiling. The TiNbN implant tested may still be of great benefit to patients who are metal sensitive, but the coat
offers no benefit in UHMWPE wear.