The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Friction and wear properties of polymer, metal, and ceramic prosthetic joint materials evaluated on a multichannel screening device
Abstract
A 12‐channel wear screening device was used to compare the wear properties of a variety of prosthetic joint materials. Two types of tests were run: (1) Ultrahigh molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene bearing against metal or ceramic counterfaces and (2) various polymers bearing against 316 stainless steel as a standard counterface. Wear was quantified by weighing the polymer specimens, with presoaking and control‐soak specimens used to minimize the error due to fluid absorption. The specimens were lubricated with bovine blood serum. Friction and polyethylene wear was very low with each of the metals (316 stainless steel, cobalt‐chrome alloy, multiphase alloy, and titanium 6–4 alloy) such that the differences in wear rate would not be significant in terms of choosing a material for clinical application. However, titanium 6–4 alloy was found to be especially susceptible to abrasive wear by particles of acrylic cement. Nitrided titanium 6–4 counterfaces were impervious to acrylic abrasion. Polyethylene wear against highly polished, fully dense ceramics (Sialon, Alumina, Macor, and pyrolytic graphite) was as low as that with the metal counterfaces. Wear increased slightly with increasing ceramic surface roughness. The coefficient of friction of polyethylene against pyrolytic graphite was two to three times higher than with the metals or other ceramics. All of the alternate polymers underwent more wear than UHMW polyethylene. Teflon and polyester, two polymers that have proven unsuccessful in prior clinical use, had wear rates 1600 and 830 times greater than polyethylene, respectively, an indication that the laboratory wear test provided a quantitative prediction of the behavior of the materials in vivo. However, it was difficult to assess the clinical significance of the less extreme wear rates since the ability of the tissues encapsulating a prosthesis to accomodate wear debris is not known on a quantitative basis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kurtz, S. (1999) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/s0142-9612(99)00053-8 · Cited by 847
Fatigue-resistant adhesion of hydrogels
Liu, J., Lin, S., Liu, X., Qin, Z., Yang, Y., Zang, J., & Zhao, X. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14871-3 · Cited by 420
Current Concepts Review - Wear in Total Hip and Knee Replacements*
SCHMALZRIED, T. P., & CALLAGHAN, J. J. (1999) · The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-199901000-00016 · Cited by 395
Biomechanical properties of high-toughness double network hydrogels
Yasuda, K., Ping Gong, J., Katsuyama, Y., Nakayama, A., Tanabe, Y., Kondo, E., Ueno, M., & Osada, Y. (2005) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.11.021 · Cited by 324
McKELLOP, H., SHEN, F.-W., LU, B., CAMPBELL, P., & SALOVEY, R. (2000) · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume · doi:10.2106/00004623-200012000-00004 · Cited by 264
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- McKellop, H., Clarke, I., Markolf, K., & Amstutz, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1981-09
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 619-653
- ISSN
- 0021-9304 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4636
- OpenAlex
- W2081048872
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Friction and wear properties of polymer, metal, and ceramic prosthetic joint materials evaluated on a multichannel screening device. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.820150503
- The paper
- McKellop, H., Clarke, I., Markolf, K., & Amstutz, H. (1981). Friction and wear properties of polymer, metal, and ceramic prosthetic joint materials evaluated on a multichannel screening device. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820150503
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.