Mechanical properties of biomaterials

Materials that are used for biomedical or clinical applications are known as biomaterials. The following article deals with fifth generation biomaterials that are used for bone structure replacement. For any material to be classified for biomedical application three requirements must be met. The first requirement is that the material must be biocompatible; it means that the organism should not treat it as a foreign object. Secondly, the material should be biodegradable (for in-graft only); the material should harmlessly degrade or dissolve in the body of the organism to allow it to resume natural functioning. Thirdly, the material should be mechanically sound; for the replacement of load bearing structures, the material should possess equivalent or greater mechanical stability to ensure high reliability of the graft.

Introduction

The biomaterial term is used for materials that can be used in biomedical and clinical applications. They are bioactive and biocompatible in nature. Currently, many types of metals and alloys (stainless steel, titanium, nickel, magnesium, Co–Cr alloys, Ti alloys),[1] ceramics (zirconia, bioglass, alumina, hydroxyapatite) [1] and polymers (acrylic, nylon, silicone, polyurethane, polycaprolactone, polyanhydrides) [1] are used for load bearing application. This includes dental replacement and bone joining or replacement for medical and clinical application. Therefore, their mechanical properties are very important. Mechanical properties of some biomaterials and bone are summarized in table 1.[2] Among them hydroxyapatite is most widely studied bioactive and biocompatible material. However, it has lower young’s modulus and fracture toughness with brittle nature. Hence, it is required to produce a biomaterial with good mechanical properties.

Elastic modulus

Elastic modulus is simply defined as the ratio of stress to strain within the proportional limit. Physically, it represents the stiffness of a material within the elastic range when tensile or compressive load are applied. It is clinically important because it indicates the selected biomaterial has similar deformable properties with the material it is going to replace. These force-bearing materials require high elastic modulus with low deflection. As the elastic modulus of material increases fracture resistance decreases. It is desirable that the biomaterial elastic modulus is similar to bone. This is because if it is more than bone elastic modulus then load is born by material only; while the load is bear by bone only if it is less than bone material. The Elastic modulus of a material is generally calculated by bending test because deflection can be easily measured in this case as compared to very small elongation in compressive or tensile load. However, biomaterials (for bone replacement) are usually porous and the sizes of the samples are small. Therefore, nanoindentation test is used to determine the elastic modulus of these materials. This method has high precision and convenient for micro scale samples. Another method of elastic modulus measurement is non-destructive method. It is also clinically very good method because of its simplicity and repeatability since materials are not destroyed.[3]

Hardness

Hardness is a measure of plastic deformation and is defined as the force per unit area of indentation or penetration. Hardness is one of the most important parameters for comparing properties of materials. It is used for finding the suitability of the clinical use of biomaterials. Biomaterial hardness is desirable as equal to bone hardness. If higher than the biomaterial, then it penetrates in the bone. Higher hardness results in less abrasion. As above said, biomaterials sample are very small therefore, micro and nano scale hardness test (Diamond Knoop and Vickers indenters) are used.[3]

Fracture strength

Strength of materials is defined as the maximum stress that can be endured before fracture occurs. Strength of biomaterials (bioceramics) is an important mechanical property because they are brittle. In brittle materials like bioceramics, cracks easily propagate when the material is subject to tensile loading, unlike compressive loading. A number of methods are available for determining the tensile strength of materials, such as the bending flexural test, the biaxial flexural strength test and the weibull approach. In bioceramics, flaws influence the reliability and strength of the material during implantation and fabrication. There are a number of ways that flaws can be produced in bioceramics such as thermal sintering and heating. The importance is for bioceramics to have high reliability, rather than high strength.

The strength of brittle materials depends on the size of flaws distributed throughout the material. According to Griffith’s theory of fracture in tension, the largest flaw or crack will contribute the most to the failure of a material. Strength also depends on the volume of a specimen since flaw size is limited to the size of the specimen’s cross-section. Therefore, the smaller the specimen (e.g., fibers), the higher the fracture strength. Porosity of implanted bioceramic has a tremendous influence on the physical properties. Pores are usually formed during processing of materials. Increasing the porosity and pore size means increasing the relative void volume and decreasing density; this leads to a reduction in mechanical properties and lowers the overall strength of bioceramic.

To use ceramics as self-standing implants that are able to withstand tensile stresses is a primary engineering design objective. Four general approaches have been used to achieve this objective: 1) use of the bioactive ceramic as a coating on a metal or ceramic substrate 2)strengthening of the ceramic, such as via crystallization of glass 3) use of fracture mechanics as a design approach and 4) reinforcing of the ceramic with a second phase.

For example, hydroxyapatite and other calcium phosphates bioceramics are important for hard tissue repair because of their similarity to the minerals in natural bone, and their excellent biocompatibility and bioactivity but they have poor fatigue resistance and strength. Hence, bioinert ceramic oxides having high strength are used to enhance the densification and the mechanical properties of them.

Fracture toughness

Fracture toughness is required to alter the crack propagation in ceramics. It is helpful to evaluate the serviceability, performance and long term clinical success of biomaterials. It is reported that the high fracture toughness material improved clinical performance and reliability as compare to low fracture toughness.[4] It can be measured by many methods e.g. indentation fracture, indentation strength, single edge notched beam, single edge pre cracked beam and double cantilever beam.

Fatigue

Fatigue is defined as failure of a material due to repeated/cyclic loading or unloading (tensile or compressive stresses). It is also an important parameter for biomaterial because cyclic load is applied during their serving life. In this cyclic loading condition, micro crack/flaws may be generated at the interface of the matrix and the filler. This micro crack can initiate permanent plastic deformation which results in large crack propagation or failure. During the cyclic load several factor also contribute to microcrack generation such as frictional sliding of the mating surface, progressive wear, residual stresses at grain boundaries, stress due to shear.[3]

Table 1: Summary of mechanical properties of cortical bone and biomaterial

MaterialTensile strength (MPa)Compressive strength (MPa)Elastic modulus (GPa)Fracture toughness (MPa. m-1/2)
Bioglass42[5]500[5]35[6]2[6]
Cortical Bone50-151[5]100-230[7]7-30[6]2-12[6]
Titanium345[8]250-600[9]102.7[8]58-66[8]
Stainless steel465-950[1]1000[9]200[5]55-95[9]
Ti-Alloys596-1100[8]450-1850[9]55-114[8]40-92[8]
Alumina270-500[9]3000-5000[9]380-410[6]5-6[6]
Hydroxyapatites40-300[9]500-1000[7]80-120[6]0.6-1[6]

Fatigue fracture and wear have been identified as some of the major problems associated with implant loosening, stress-shielding and ultimate implant failure. Although wear is commonly reported in orthopaedic applications such as knee and hip joint prostheses, it is also a serious and often fatal experience in mechanical heart valves. The selection of biomaterials for wear resistance unfortunately cannot rely only on conventional thinking of using hard ceramics because of their low coefficient of friction and high modulus of elasticity. This is because ceramics are generally prone to brittle fracture (having a fracture toughness typically less than 1 MPa√m) and need absolute quality control to avoid fatigue fracture for medical device applications. The development of fatigue fracture and wear resistant biomaterials looks into the biocomposites of two or more different phases such as in interpenetrating network composites. The advantage of these composites is that one can incorporate controlled drug release chemicals, friction modifiers, different morphologies to enable better host–implant performance and chemical entities to reduce or aid removal of wear debris. Of equal importance are the tools developed to predict fatigue fracture/wear using new methodologies involving in vitro tests, computational modelling to obtain design stresses and fracture/wear maps to identify mechanisms.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Katti, K. S. (2004). Biomaterials in total joint replacement. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 39(3), 133-142.
  2. ↑ Wang, R. Z., Cui, F. Z., Lu, H. B., Wen, H. B., Ma, C. L., & Li, H. D. (1995). Synthesis of nanophase hydroxyapatite/collagen composite. Journal of materials science letters, 14(7), 490-492.
  3. 1 2 3 Kokubo, T. (Ed.). (2008). Bioceramics and their clinical applications. Woodhead Pub. and Maney Pub.
  4. ↑ Fischer, H., & Marx, R. (2002). Fracture toughness of dental ceramics: comparison of bending and indentation method. Dental Materials, 18(1), 12-19.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Chen, Q., Zhu, C., & Thouas, G. A. (2012). Progress and challenges in biomaterials used for bone tissue engineering: bioactive glasses and elastomeric composites. Progress in Biomaterials, 1(1), 1-22.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Amaral, M., Lopes, M. A., Silva, R. F., & Santos, J. D. (2002). Densification route and mechanical properties of Si 3 N 4–bioglass biocomposites. Biomaterials, 23(3), 857-862.
  7. 1 2 Kokubo, T., Kim, H. M., & Kawashita, M. (2003). Novel bioactive materials with different mechanical properties. Biomaterials, 24(13), 2161-2175.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Niinomi, M. (1998). Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloys.Materials Science and Engineering: A, 243(1), 231-236.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2013-10-30. Retrieved 2013-05-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

1)Ichim, Q. Li, W. Li, M.V. Swain, J. Kieser,Modelling of fracture behaviour in biomaterials,Biomaterials,Volume 28, Issue 7,2007,Pages 1317-1326

2)S.H Teoh, Fatigue of biomaterials: a review, International Journal of Fatigue, Volume 22, Issue 10, 2000, Pages 825-837

Further reading

  • Bhatia, S. K. (2010). Biomaterials for clinical applications. Springer.
  • Hench, L. L. (1993). An introduction to bioceramics (Vol. 1). World Scientific.
This article is issued from Offline. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.