Next Article in Journal
Novel Composite Nitride Nanoceramics from Reaction-Mixed Nanocrystalline Powders in the System Aluminum Nitride AlN/Gallium Nitride GaN/Titanium Nitride TiN (Al:Ga:Ti = 1:1:1)
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of Binderless Polycrystalline Diamonds: Focus on the High-Pressure–High-Temperature Sintering Process
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/ma15062197
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Effect of Selected Physiological Fluid Contaminants on the Mechanical Properties of Selected Medium-Viscosity PMMA Bone Cements

by
Robert Karpiński
1,*,
Jakub Szabelski
2,*,
Przemysław Krakowski
3,4,
Mariusz Jojczuk
3,
Józef Jonak
1 and
Adam Nogalski
3
1
Department of Machine Design and Mechatronics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 36, 20-618 Lublin, Poland
2
Section of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Computerization and Production Robotization, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 36, 20-618 Lublin, Poland
3
Department of Trauma Surgery and Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Lublin, Staszica 11, 20-081 Lublin, Poland
4
Orthopaedic Department, Łęczna Hospital, Krasnystawska 52, 21-010 Leczna, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(6), 2197; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062197
Submission received: 18 February 2022 / Revised: 10 March 2022 / Accepted: 15 March 2022 / Published: 16 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Biomaterials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Revision surgeries several years after the implantation of the prosthesis are unfavorable from the patient’s point of view as they expose him to additional discomfort, to risk of complications and are expensive. One of the factors responsible for the aseptic loosening of the prosthesis is the gradual degradation of the cement material as a result of working under considerable loads, in an aggressive environment of the human body. Contaminants present in the surgical field may significantly affect the durability of the bone cement and, consequently, of the entire bone-cement-prosthesis system. The paper presents the results of an analysis of selected mechanical properties of two medium-viscosity bone cements DePuy CMW3 Gentamicin and Heraeus Palamed, for the samples contaminated with saline and blood in the range of 1–10%. The results obtained for compressive strength and modulus of elasticity were subjected to statistical analysis, which estimated the nature of changes in these parameters depending on the amount and type of contamination and their statistical significance.

1. Introduction

Osteoarthritis is a progressive, incurable disease that mostly affects the elderly; however, an increasing number of studies are showing osteoarthritic changes in the younger population [1,2,3,4]. Some factors such as obesity, injuries, and work and leisure joint overload can accelerate the development of osteoarthritis [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Hyaline cartilage is a highly sophisticated tissue, which is responsible for painless and smooth movement of joints. However, due to its highly specialized structure, low chondrocyte count and slow metabolism, its healing capacity is relatively low [11]. Cartilage, which cannot heal properly, will not perform its function, therefore pain and loss of movement in affected joints will occur as an effect of osteoarthritic changes. Gold standard for end stage disease is total joint replacement. In 1954, Shiers [12] published his paper on the use of metal implants in osteoarthritic knee, which started development of joint replacement surgeries on wider scale. In recent years, the number of total joint replacement procedures is increasing, and between 2003 and 2014, the increase reached 115.1% [13]. It is suggested that up to 2040, the increase in total joint replacement rate will be 400% [14]. Bone cements were firstly introduced by Charnley [15] and are one of the most commonly used polymer composites in in dentistry and orthopaedics surgery [16]. Apart from binding endoprosthesis with bone, they are also used for filling bone defects, strengthening bone in pathological fractures or during minimally invasive vertebroplasty [17,18,19,20]. According to Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register majority of total knee replacements (TKR) are performed with the use of bone cement, and cementless TKR is susceptible to higher revision rate [21]. The 15-year survivor rate of total joint replacement is estimated to be about 90% [22]. Therefore, revision rate of total joint replacement may significantly increase in future years. Two main reasons for revision surgery are aseptic loosening and infection. It is estimated that 1–2% of all total joint replacements will develop fast or delayed infection [22]. The second most common cause of revision is aseptic loosening of the endoprosthesis. During daily activities, joint prostheses are subjected to great loads and transmit high forces. These loads are also transferred to the bone cement, which is the only connection between the bone and the endoprosthesis. This means that the strength of the bone cement is crucial for the survival of the endoprosthesis. Many factors influence bone cement properties, out of which fatigue, viscoelasticity of creep and stress relaxation are of paramount importance in cemented endoprosthesis [23].
In general, bone cements are self-polymerizing biomaterials that are widely used in orthopedic, traumatology and oncologic, spine or maxillofacial surgery when bone defects need to be filled [24,25]. Cementation technique has a significant impact on the survival of orthopaedic implants. Despite optimized cement preparation and proper pre-cementing technique, the biomechanical properties of the bone cement used appear to be very important in preventing aseptic loosening of the implant [26,27]. The mechanical properties of bone cements may be affected by factors such as antibiotic content; intentionally introduced admixtures [28,29,30,31,32]; or contaminants present in the surgical field such as blood, bone tissue fragments, saline solution [33,34,35,36] or commonly used lavage solutions [37], as well as the mixing process itself [38,39,40] and the preparation of the cement for implantation. Intensive research is currently being conducted to improve the thermal, mechanical and biological properties of bone cements [16]. The research includes doping the cement mass with small amounts of components such as carbon fibers [41], zirconia fibers [42], graphite fibers [43], graphene oxide [44,45,46,47], bioactive glasses [48], nanosilver [49], polydioxanone (PDO) [48], cellulose [48,50,51], mesoporous silica nanoparticles [52,53], aramid [54,55], polyethylene [56], titanium [57,58], ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene [59], tricalcium phosphate (TCP) [16,60] or hydroxyapatite (HA) [61,62]. The effect of aging processes associated with the absorption of physiological fluids and the accompanying hydrolysis of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) occurring in the outermost layers of the cement are also important, as well as the effect of deviation from the manufacturer’s recommended cement mix ratio [63,64,65,66,67]. It is important to remember that the post-implant cement works in the aggressive environment of the human body and is subjected to cyclical stresses. These are factors that determine the long-term survival of the bone-cement-prosthesis connection. [68]. Considering the fact that cement is the weakest element of the bone-cement-prosthesis system, it is extremely important to study the effects of factors that may worsen its mechanical properties immediately after implantation or accelerate the ageing process, allowing for the cement to lose its mechanical properties prematurely, which may result in prosthesis loosening [69]. In this paper, the authors present the results of studies on the influence of admixing the cement mass with impurities in the form of physiological fluids naturally occurring in the surgical field (blood and 0.9% saline solution) on the mechanical properties of selected commercially available bone cements. Such conditions can occur during TJR implantation, if the manufacturer’s guidelines will not be fulfilled correctly by the surgeon. Therefore, understanding the effect of bone cement contamination is not only a theoretical problem but a genuine issue for surgeons and patients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Sample Preparations

The list of known bone cements includes more than 70 products from about 20 different manufacturers, of which about 50 types are still commercially available. They differ in application method, strength characteristics, time and temperature of curing and many other parameters [70,71]. Samples made of two commercial cements were tested: DePuy CMW3 Gentamicin (G) and Heraeus Palamed. The selection of cements was based on a combination of materials with similar properties. Palamed (Wehrheim, Germany) is medium-viscosity, fast-curing, radiopaque, poly-(methyl methacrylate)-based bone cement. To improve visibility in the surgical field, the cement has been coloured with chlorophyll (E141). The X-ray contrast medium is zirconium dioxide. The packaging contains gentamicin-containing polymer powder and a brown glass ampoule of liquid monomer, which are mixed cured in exothermic reaction for approximately 10 min depending on the temperature. DePuy CMW3 Gentamicin (Raynham, MA, USA) is composed of medium-viscosity, self-curing, radiopaque, polymethyl-methacrylate-based cements, containing antibiotics, and is used for securing a metal or polymeric prosthesis to living bone in arthroplasty procedures. It is primarily intended for syringe application, but if it is applied digitally, the surgeon must use their clinical judgement to decide when the cement is of a suitable viscosity to allow the surgical procedure to continue.
A summary of the chemical composition of both cements is shown in Table 1. The compositions of the analysed cements are similar. The most important dissimilarities are the use of different radiopaque agents and the presence of a colorant in Palamed (both in the liquid and powder part). In addition, an antibiotic was used in the CMW3 cement. Of course, the cements may differ in the amount of individual common components, which will affect the final strength characteristics of the individual cements.
The research was planned and carried out on the basis of ISO 5833 standard: implants for surgery—acrylic resin cements [72] and annex E: determination of compressive strength of polymerized cement. The precooled monomer and liquid part of the cement were mixed by hand at temperature of 20 °C for time of approx. 2 min, keeping in mind the working times for manual mixing of each cement [35] (Figure 1). The bone cement was mixed with physiological fluid. Physiological fluids are used during surgical field irrigation prior to cement placement; therefore, in surgical practice such contamination is unavoidable. In this study, we have used commercial 0.9 %NaCl solution, which is isotonic to blood in its nature and is commonly used for intravenous fluid infusions, wound cleansing and surgical wounds irrigation. Approval of Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Lublin University of Technology was obtained with consent number KE-05/2016.
The blood samples were collected from volunteers after explanation of the procedure, explanation of possible side effects of blood collection and the signing of written consent by each volunteer. Prior to blood sample collection, the skin was cleansed with antiseptic solution and intravenous canula was introduced. Blood was sampled in a typical manner by intravenous canula introduced into cubital fossa vain. Blood samples were collected without any additives such as anticoagulants to reflect surgical field blood contamination prior to cement introduction. Blood samples were mixed with bone cement immediately after collection from volunteers and were not altered in any way. Blood collection was supervised by a health care professional with adequate certification. Any remaining biological and biohazard wastes were utilized according to appropriate regulations.
Contaminants were introduced into the bone cement at preparation stage. This approach was deliberately chosen to mix whole cement mass with the contaminant and not only the peripheral layers of specimen, and secondly to reduce variables such as time which could influence the results. It was shown that the longer bone cement is immersed in a contaminant solution, the higher absorption of contaminant that existed in the sample [63]. Based on those findings, full-contamination testing was chosen in this study. A specified weight quantity of contaminant was added to even amount of uncured cement and mixed. Contamination ratio is given in relative units % w/w. This approach enabled investigation of the contaminated cement strength impairment in extreme conditions, which, however, could happen in live surgery while the thickness of cement mass in intramedullary canal is relatively low.
The tests were carried out for different cases of quantitatively variable degree of cement mass contamination, in the range of 0–10% by weight. Using cast, cylinders samples were prepared, no less than 7 per combination of contaminant amount. The final dimensions of ⌀6 ± 1 mm × 12 ± 1 mm were obtained after mild abrasive treatment of both of the ends of the cement cylinders planes with the faces of the mould. The final samples contaminated with saline did not differ much in terms of colour. Those with added blood were darker after each step of contamination increase (Figure 2).

2.2. Mechanical Testing

The compressive strength of the cylinders was determined using MTS Bionix–Servohydraulic Test System (Eden Prairie, MN, USA)—the test machine capable of applying and measuring a compressive force, equipped to record load versus crosshead displacement (Figure 3). The average diameter of each test piece was measured prior the test. The curves of displacement against load, using a constant cross-head speed of 20 mm/min, were obtained. Upper yield-point load divided by the original cross-sectional area of the cylinder was used to express the compressive strength. In addition, the stiffness of the material—compressive modulus of elasticity of examined cements—was calculated as the slope of the stress-strain curve at 2% displacement, in the area of the linear elastic strain region. Compression/compressive modulus is also known as compressive Young’s modulus and describes ability of the material to withstand changes in length when subjected to compressive loads. The higher the compression modulus, the stiffer the material. The examined specimens were tested at 23 °C.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The test results, as recommended by ISO 5833, are presented as mean values and standard deviations. However, this is not sufficient information to draw conclusions about statistically significant differences between individual batches of samples. Therefore, statistical analyses were performed that, at a significance level of α = 0.05, will allow one to estimate the actual changes in compressive strength and compressive modulus of elasticity as a function of the amount of contamination. The tests were conducted using the software of TIBCO Software Inc. (2017) Statistica (data analysis software system), version 13.3.
The methods of multiple comparison of averages of several groups in order to clarify the differences detected by the analysis of variance allow for the grouping of the mean values and extract homogeneous groups, i.e., groups of mean values that do not differ statistically from each other. From the available solutions (Scheffé, Tukey, Newman and Keuls, Duncan, Fisher tests), the Tukey test was selected, namely, its variant for unequal samples, as the tested groups differed in the number of correct samples [73].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Compressive Strength

The final results of the compressive test are presented in Figure 4 and Table 2. The relatively low values of the standard deviation can be clearly observed. The average coefficient of variation of the test results (standard deviation divided by the average value) within each series was approximately 4%, which indicates high homogeneity of the results obtained in each group. A preliminary analysis of the strength changes shows that the average compressive strength of cement decreases with an increase in the degree of contamination. Regardless of the type of impurity, above 8% of its content in the cement composition, the strength weakening is evident. On the other hand, both cements exhibit interesting behaviour in small ranges of impurities, especially in the case of saline. Up to about 2% of its addition to the cement, average compressive strengths increased relative to pure cements.
Confirmation of the significance of the changes in the strength characteristic investigated was sought in the statistical processing of the experimental results. Analyses performed using the Tukey test (for unequal amounts of samples) allowed separating groups of homogeneous compression strength results, which are presented in Table 3. Table 4 presents cross-referenced significant differences between individual series. Values above 0.05 (black) indicate no statistically significant difference between the series being compared. The results obtained clearly show that bone cement contamination significantly affects its compressive strength. For almost every case studied, the 1% admixture significantly changed the strength, increasing it by 8.5–10% on average. Only CMW3 Gentamicin cement admixed with blood did not show any increase in compressive strength.
A summarised comparison of the relative change in average compressive strength of the contaminated cements in relation to unmodified cement is shown in Figure 5. The results of statistical analysis have been included in the graph by framing changes not significant statistically and by defining the area of statistical non-significance.

3.2. Compressive Modulus of Elasticity

A summary of the compressive modulus of elasticity is presented in Table 5 and Figure 6. The first analysis already shows clear changes in the modulus after contamination of the cements. CMW3 Gentamicin contaminated with saline solution increased its stiffness the most. The average modulus doubled already at 1% solution addition. Increasing the amount of contamination led to smaller and smaller increases in average modulus, although at 10% addition it was still about 30% more than for the uncontaminated cement. Changes of similar nature, although not so high values, were observed for Palamed cement, but the values of the distribution of the results for individual batches do not allow one to conclude at this stage whether these changes were statistically significant. The admixture of cements with blood, in the case of CMW3 Gentamicin, made the cement more and more flexible, while at 10% addition the average modulus reached about 80% of that of unadulterated cement. Larger variations were observed for Palamed, although, again, individual results with average variation are not necessarily statistically significant. However, once again similar strength behaviour of the cement was recorded, i.e., slight admixture with blood (~1%) resulted in a forced, almost jump-like increase in modulus and further admixture led to a smooth decrease in average modulus values.
The statistical analysis of the modulus of elasticity results was carried out in the same way as above for the compressive strength. Using Tukey tests, the individual results were grouped into homogeneous groups with statistically insignificant differences (Table 6). In 3 out of 4 cases of contamination, as in the case of compressive strength, the statistical significance of the change (increase) in modulus was confirmed already at 1% contamination admixture. Only the modulus of CMW3 Gentamicin cement, whose average modulus decreased from the beginning, successively with increasing contamination, showed a statistically significant decrease only at 6% contamination. The modulus of elasticity of Palamed after the initial significant increase in value, at 4% of contamination, returned to statistically insignificant change in relation to the “pure” cement and up to 8% at saline contamination, and the limit tested amount was 10% at blood contamination. Significant differences of the tested values are presented in Table 7.
A combined summary of the relative change in the mean value for the compressive modulus of the contaminated cements in relation to that of the unmodified cement is shown in Figure 7. The graph takes into account the results of the statistical analysis by marking statistically insignificant changes with solid frames.
Cold-cured PMMA (also known as chemically cured or self-curing PMMA) requires no thermal energy. A tertiary amine initiator such as n,n-dimethyl-ptoluidine is added to the cold-cured PMMA, which activates the benzyl peroxide, chemically generating free radicals to initiate the polymerization. In the propagation stage, the activated polymerization continues by binding monomers and is completed by shifting free electrons to the end of the chain [74,75].
Research to improve the performance of bone cements involving the admixing of different materials often leads to modification of the cement material by chemical means [34,35,76,77,78,79]. In the case of the admixtures with saline and blood described in this paper, the nature of which may be accidental and unintentional, a change in the mechanical properties of the cements was also recorded, but its reasons should not be sought in chemical interactions. The contaminants tested were chemically neutral in nature. Both saline and blood have very low chemical reactivity. The reasons for these changes should therefore be found phenomena of a physical nature. Due to the molecular polarity of the molecules, water molecules penetrate the polymer chains and act as plasticizers [80]. Thinning of the cement mass can increase the distance between cross-linking molecules and this, in turn, results in the formation of shorter polymer chains, leading to a weakening of the material. Although a significant amount of monomers will react and crosslink, the material becomes less rigid and therefore its strength decreases.
The admixture of a non-native material to an uncured cement may consequently lead to an increase in porosity of the crosslinked cement, especially if the contaminating material is a liquid that may leave the structure of the material after crosslinking the polymer. Moreover, the increase in porosity itself does not have to be regarded as a negative phenomenon as it may contribute to improving osteointegration, i.e., the biological-chemical-physical integration process that permanently links the cement to the patient’s bone [81]. This gives the fixed implant even more stabilization. An increase in porosity on a small scale can be positive from a mechanical point of view, and 1–2% admixture can be the limiting threshold. A greater increase in porosity resulting from an excessive amount of additional contaminant accidentally introduced in the cement can adversely affect mechanical performance and make the cement more susceptible to failure even when subjected to small forces.
It should be remembered that the analyzed parameters concern only the mechanical properties, and conclusions drawn from the obtained results cannot be used at this stage to construct any general recommendations. Obtaining a slight but statistically significant increase in strength with insignificant admixtures may be at the cost of deterioration of other critical properties (e.g., fatigue resistance, environmental resistance, etc.), but it provides a good basis for further research on the problem of targeted admixture to bone cements.

4. Conclusions

As a result of the experimental studies presented in this paper, a significant effect of the analysed impurities on the strength characteristics of the cement was demonstrated. The change in compressive strength was characterised by an initial increase, after which, after 2–4% admixture, it returned to the same values as for unmodified cement. Further increases in the number of impurities resulted in a decrease in strength compared to pure cement. Only in the case of Gentamicin CMW3 cement was such behaviour not recorded—the strength value dropped immediately (statistically significantly from about 2% of admixture). The modulus of elasticity showed a similar pattern of change with cement contamination, although there were clear differences between the two cements tested. The initial increase in modulus of the Palamed cement (blood and salt), at 2–4% contamination, changed to a decrease in modulus (increase in stiffness). CMW3 Gentamicin cement doped with blood responded (similar to compressive strength) with a decrease in modulus as the number of impurities increased (statistically significantly from 6%). Importantly, the modulus of CMW3 G cement increased approximately twice already for a minimal 1% addition of saline. The change decreased with higher amounts of impurities, but in the maximum tested range of impurities (10%) it was still statistically significant and slightly over 30% higher than unmodified cement. Thus, it is clear that proper bone preparation such as pulse lavage and drying prior to cement insertion can reduce cement degradation by contaminants and consequently reduce the percentage of cement failures after total joint replacement surgery.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.K. and J.S.; methodology, R.K. and J.S.; software R.K. and J.S.; validation, R.K., P.K., and J.J.; formal analysis, P.K. and M.J.; investigation, R.K., J.S., and M.J.; resources, J.S. and R.K.; data curation, J.S. and R.K.; writing—original draft preparation, R.K., J.S. and P.K.; writing—review and editing, R.K. and J.S.; visualization, J.S.; supervision, J.J. and A.N.; project administration, P.K. and A.N; funding acquisition, M.J. and A.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was supported by the Medical University of Lublin. Grant no. DS 710.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Lublin University of Technology, consent number KE-05/2016.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Cameron, K.; Hsiao, M.; Owens, B.; Burks, R.; Svoboda, S.J. Incidence of Physician-Diagnosed Osteoarthritis among Active Duty United States Military Service Members. Arthr. Rheumatol. 2011, 63, 2974–2982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Dulay, G.S.; Cooper, C.; Dennison, E.M. Knee Pain, Knee Injury, Knee Osteoarthritis & Work. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2015, 29, 454–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Krakowski, P.; Karpiński, R.; Maciejewski, R.; Jonak, J.; Jurkiewicz, A. Short-Term Effects of Arthroscopic Microfracturation of Knee Chondral Defects in Osteoarthritis. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Krakowski, P.; Nogalski, A.; Jurkiewicz, A.; Karpiński, R.; Maciejewski, R.; Jonak, J. Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Physical Examination and MRI in the Most Common Knee Injuries. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Widmyer, M.R.; Utturkar, G.M.; Leddy, H.A.; Coleman, J.L.; Spritzer, C.E.; Moorman, C.T.; DeFrate, L.E.; Guilak, F. High Body Mass Index Is Associated with Increased Diurnal Strains in the Articular Cartilage of the Knee. Arthritis Rheum. 2013, 65, 2615–2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Martin-Rodriguez, E.; Guillen-Grima, F.; Martí, A.; Brugos-Larumbe, A. Comorbidity Associated with Obesity in a Large Population: The APNA Study. Obes. Res. Clin. Pract. 2015, 9, 435–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Thijssen, E.; van Caam, A.; van der Kraan, P.M. Obesity and Osteoarthritis, More than Just Wear and Tear: Pivotal Roles for Inflamed Adipose Tissue and Dyslipidaemia in Obesity-Induced Osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 2015, 54, 588–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Furman, B.D.; Olson, S.A.; Guilak, F. The Development of Posttraumatic Arthritis after Articular Fracture. J. Orthop. Trauma 2006, 20, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Friel, N.A.; Chu, C.R. The Role of ACL Injury in the Development of Posttraumatic Knee Osteoarthritis. Clin. Sports Med. 2013, 32, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krakowski, P.; Karpiński, R.; Jojczuk, M.; Nogalska, A.; Jonak, J. Knee MRI Underestimates the Grade of Cartilage Lesions. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cibere, J.; Sayre, E.C.; Guermazi, A.; Nicolaou, S.; Kopec, J.A.; Esdaile, J.M.; Thorne, A.; Singer, J.; Wong, H. Natural History of Cartilage Damage and Osteoarthritis Progression on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Population-Based Cohort with Knee Pain. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2011, 19, 683–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Shiers, L.G. Arthroplasty of the Knee; Preliminary Report of New Method. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1954, 36-B, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2020 Annual Report; AOANJRR: Adelaide, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  14. Singh, J.A.; Yu, S.; Chen, L.; Cleveland, J.D. Rates of Total Joint Replacement in the United States: Future Projections to 2020–2040 Using the National Inpatient Sample. J. Rheumatol. 2019, 46, 1134–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Learmonth, I.D.; Young, C.; Rorabeck, C. The Operation of the Century: Total Hip Replacement. Lancet 2007, 370, 1508–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Serbetci, K.; Korkusuz, F.; Hasirci, N. Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Hydroxyapatite Impregnated Acrylic Bone Cements. Polym. Test. 2004, 23, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rodriguez, L.; Chari, J.; Aghyarian, S.; Gindri, I.; Kosmopoulos, V.; Rodrigues, D. Preparation and Characterization of Injectable Brushite Filled-Poly (Methyl Methacrylate) Bone Cement. Materials 2014, 7, 6779–6795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Jiang, H.-J.; Xu, J.; Qiu, Z.-Y.; Ma, X.-L.; Zhang, Z.-Q.; Tan, X.-X.; Cui, Y.; Cui, F.-Z. Mechanical Properties and Cytocompatibility Improvement of Vertebroplasty PMMA Bone Cements by Incorporating Mineralized Collagen. Materials 2015, 8, 2616–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lewis, G. Injectable Bone Cements for Use in Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty: State-of-the-Art Review. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2006, 76B, 456–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, H.; Liu, B.; Gao, C.; Meng, B.; Yang, H.; Yu, H.; Yang, L. Injectable, Biomechanically Robust, Biodegradable and Osseointegrative Bone Cement for Percutaneous Kyphoplasty and Vertebroplasty. Int. Orthop. 2018, 42, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Robertsson, O.; Lidgren, L.; Sundberg, M.; W-Dahl, A. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2020; Media-Tryck: Lund, Sweden, 2020; ISBN 978-91-88017-32-1. [Google Scholar]
  22. Barnett, A.J.; Toms, A.D. Revision Total Hip and Knee Replacement. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2012, 28, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lee, A.J.C. The Time-Dependent Properties of Polymethylmethacrylate Bone Cement: The Interaction of Shape of Femoral Stems, Surface Finish and Bone Cement. In Interfaces in Total Hip Arthroplasty; Learmonth, I.D., Ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2000; pp. 11–19. ISBN 978-1-4471-1150-4. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wekwejt, M.; Moritz, N.; Świeczko-Żurek, B.; Pałubicka, A. Biomechanical Testing of Bioactive Bone Cements—A Comparison of the Impact of Modifiers: Antibiotics and Nanometals. Polym. Test. 2018, 70, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wekwejt, M.; Michalska-Sionkowska, M.; Bartmański, M.; Nadolska, M.; Łukowicz, K.; Pałubicka, A.; Osyczka, A.M.; Zieliński, A. Influence of Several Biodegradable Components Added to Pure and Nanosilver-Doped PMMA Bone Cements on Its Biological and Mechanical Properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 117, 111286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Matuszewski, Ł.; Olchowik, G.; Mazurkiewicz, T.; Kowalczyk, B.; Zdrojewska, A.; Matuszewska, A.; Ciszewski, A.; Gospodarek, M.; Morawik, I. Biomechanical Parameters of the BP-Enriched Bone Cement. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2014, 24, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Callaghan, J.J.; Rosenberg, A.G.; Rubash, H.E. The Adult Hip; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007; Volume 1, ISBN 0-7817-5092-X. [Google Scholar]
  28. Montaño, C.J.; Campos, T.P.R.; Lemos, B.R.S.; Yoshida, M.I.; Almeida, N.G.S.; Aguilar, M.T.P.; Lima, C.V. Effects of Hydroxyapatite on PMMA-HAp Cement for Biomedical Applications. Biomed. Mater. Eng. 2020, 31, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. de Souza Leão, R.; de Moraes SL, D.; de Luna Gomes, J.M.; Lemos CA, A.; da Silva Casado, B.G.; do Egito Vasconcelos, B.C.; Pellizzer, E.P. Influence of Addition of Zirconia on PMMA: A Systematic Review. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 106, 110292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Prakash, J.; Prema, D.; Venkataprasanna, K.S.; Balagangadharan, K.; Selvamurugan, N.; Venkatasubbu, G.D. Nanocomposite Chitosan Film Containing Graphene Oxide/Hydroxyapatite/Gold for Bone Tissue Engineering. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 154, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Céspedes-Valenzuela, D.N.; Sánchez-Rentería, S.; Cifuentes, J.; Gantiva-Diaz, M.; Serna, J.A.; Reyes, L.H.; Ostos, C.; Cifuentes-De la Portilla, C.; Muñoz-Camargo, C.; Cruz, J.C. Preparation and Characterization of an Injectable and Photo-Responsive Chitosan Methacrylate/Graphene Oxide Hydrogel: Potential Applications in Bone Tissue Adhesion and Repair. Polymers 2021, 14, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zapata, M.E.V.; Tovar, C.D.G.; Hernandez, J.H.M. The Role of Chitosan and Graphene Oxide in Bioactive and Antibacterial Properties of Acrylic Bone Cements. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tan, J.; Koh, B.T.; Ramruttun, A.; Wang, W. Compression and Flexural Strength of Bone Cement Mixed with Blood. J. Orthop. Surg. 2016, 24, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Karpiński, R.; Szabelski, J.; Maksymiuk, J. Effect of Physiological Fluids Contamination on Selected Mechanical Properties of Acrylate Bone Cement. Materials 2019, 12, 3963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Szabelski, J.; Karpiński, R.; Krakowski, P.; Jonak, J. The Impact of Contaminating Poly (Methyl Methacrylate) (PMMA) Bone Cements on Their Compressive Strength. Materials 2021, 14, 2555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Machrowska, A.; Szabelski, J.; Karpiński, R.; Krakowski, P.; Jonak, J.; Jonak, K. Use of Deep Learning Networks and Statistical Modeling to Predict Changes in Mechanical Parameters of Contaminated Bone Cements. Materials 2020, 13, 5419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wu, M.; O’Donnell, J.; Cochrane, N.; Ryan, S.; Belay, E.; Myntti, M.; Seyler, T. Effect of Commonly Used Lavage Solutions on the Polymerization of Bone Cement. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2022, 103243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Graham, J.; Pruitt, L.; Ries, M.; Gundiah, N. Fracture and Fatigue Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement: The Effects of Mixing Method, Sterilization Treatment, and Molecular Weight. J. Arthroplast. 2000, 15, 1028–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lewis, G. Effect of Mixing Method and Storage Temperature of Cement Constituents on the Fatigue and Porosity of Acrylic Bone Cement. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1999, 48, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, J.-S.; Breusch, S.J. Mixing: Choice of Mixing System. In The Well-Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty—Theory and Practice; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; p. 113. [Google Scholar]
  41. Boehm, A.; Meininger, S.; Tesch, A.; Gbureck, U.; Müller, F. The Mechanical Properties of Biocompatible Apatite Bone Cement Reinforced with Chemically Activated Carbon Fibers. Materials 2018, 11, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kotha, S.; Li, C.; Schmid, S.; Mason, J. Reinforcement of Bone Cement Using Zirconia Fibers with and without Acrylic Coating. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2009, 88A, 898–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Knoell, A.; Maxwell, H.; Bechtol, C. Graphite Fiber Reinforced Bone Cement: An Experimental Feasibility Investigation. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 1975, 3, 225–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tavakoli, M.; Bakhtiari, S.S.E.; Karbasi, S. Incorporation of Chitosan/Graphene Oxide Nanocomposite in to the PMMA Bone Cement: Physical, Mechanical and Biological Evaluation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 149, 783–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Paz, E.; Ballesteros, Y.; Forriol, F.; Dunne, N.J.; del Real, J.C. Graphene and Graphene Oxide Functionalisation with Silanes for Advanced Dispersion and Reinforcement of PMMA-Based Bone Cements. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 104, 109946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Paz, E.; Forriol, F.; del Real, J.C.; Dunne, N. Graphene Oxide versus Graphene for Optimisation of PMMA Bone Cement for Orthopaedic Applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017, 77, 1003–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Paz, E.; Ballesteros, Y.; Abenojar, J.; del Real, J.C.; Dunne, N.J. Graphene Oxide and Graphene Reinforced PMMA Bone Cements: Evaluation of Thermal Properties and Biocompatibility. Materials 2019, 12, 3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Wekwejt, M.; Chen, S.; Kaczmarek-Szczepańska, B.; Nadolska, M.; Łukowicz, K.; Pałubicka, A.; Michno, A.; Osyczka, A.M.; Michálek, M.; Zieliński, A. Nanosilver-Loaded PMMA Bone Cement Doped with Different Bioactive Glasses—Evaluation of Cytocompatibility, Antibacterial Activity, and Mechanical Properties. Biomater. Sci. 2021, 9, 3112–3126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wekwejt, M.; Michno, A.; Truchan, K.; Pałubicka, A.; Świeczko-Żurek, B.; Osyczka, A.M.; Zieliński, A. Antibacterial Activity and Cytocompatibility of Bone Cement Enriched with Antibiotic, Nanosilver, and Nanocopper for Bone Regeneration. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Rahighi, R.; Panahi, M.; Akhavan, O.; Mansoorianfar, M. Pressure-Engineered Electrophoretic Deposition for Gentamicin Loading within Osteoblast-Specific Cellulose Nanofiber Scaffolds. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2021, 272, 125018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mansoorianfar, M.; Shahin, K.; Mirström, M.M.; Li, D. Cellulose-Reinforced Bioglass Composite as Flexible Bioactive Bandage to Enhance Bone Healing. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Letchmanan, K.; Shen, S.-C.; Ng, W.K.; Kingshuk, P.; Shi, Z.; Wang, W.; Tan, R.B.H. Mechanical Properties and Antibiotic Release Characteristics of Poly(Methyl Methacrylate)-Based Bone Cement Formulated with Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2017, 72, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Slane, J.; Vivanco, J.; Ebenstein, D.; Squire, M.; Ploeg, H.-L. Multiscale Characterization of Acrylic Bone Cement Modified with Functionalized Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 37, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. He, X.; Qu, Y.; Peng, J.; Peng, T.; Qian, Z. A Novel Botryoidal Aramid Fiber Reinforcement of a PMMA Resin for a Restorative Biomaterial. Biomater. Sci. 2017, 5, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Xu, H.H.K.; Quinn, J.B.; Takagi, S.; Chow, L.C.; Eichmiller, F.C. Strong and Macroporous Calcium Phosphate Cement: Effects of Porosity and Fiber Reinforcement on Mechanical Properties. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2001, 57, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ramakrishna, S.; Mayer, J.; Wintermantel, E.; Leong, K.W. Biomedical Applications of Polymer-Composite Materials: A Review. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2001, 61, 1189–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Khaled, S.M.Z.; Charpentier, P.A.; Rizkalla, A.S. Physical and Mechanical Properties of PMMA Bone Cement Reinforced with Nano-Sized Titania Fibers. J. Biomater. Appl. 2011, 25, 515–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kotha, S.P.; Li, C.; McGinn, P.; Schmid, S.R.; Mason, J.J. Improved Mechanical Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement with Short Titanium Fiber Reinforcement. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2006, 17, 743–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yang, J.-M.; Huang, P.-Y.; Yang, M.-C. The Effect of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Fiber on the Mechanical Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement. J. Polym. Res. 1997, 4, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yang, J.-M.; Li, H.-M.; Yang, M.-C.; Shih, C.-H. Characterization of Acrylic Bone Cement Using Dynamic Mechanical Analysis. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1999, 48, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shirdar, M.R.; Taheri, M.M.; Qi, M.-L.; Gohari, S.; Farajpour, N.; Narayanan, S.; Foroozan, T.; Sharifi-Asl, S.; Shahbazian-Yassar, R.; Shokuhfar, T. Optimization of the Mechanical Properties and the Cytocompatibility for the PMMA Nanocomposites Reinforced with the Hydroxyapatite Nanofibers and the Magnesium Phosphate Nanosheets. Materials 2021, 14, 5893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Phakatkar, A.H.; Shirdar, M.R.; Qi, M.; Taheri, M.M.; Narayanan, S.; Foroozan, T.; Sharifi-Asl, S.; Huang, Z.; Agrawal, M.; Lu, Y.; et al. Novel PMMA Bone Cement Nanocomposites Containing Magnesium Phosphate Nanosheets and Hydroxyapatite Nanofibers. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 109, 110497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Karpiński, R.; Szabelski, J.; Maksymiuk, J. Seasoning Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) Bone Cements with Incorrect Mix Ratio. Materials 2019, 12, 3073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Ayre, W.N.; Denyer, S.P.; Evans, S.L. Ageing and Moisture Uptake in Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) Bone Cements. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 32, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Gbureck, U.; Grübel, S.; Thull, R.; Barralet, J.E. Modified PMMA Cements for a Hydrolysis Resistant Metal–Polymer Interface in Orthopaedic Applications. Acta Biomater. 2005, 1, 671–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tham, W.L.; Chow, W.S.; Mohd Ishak, Z.A. Simulated Body Fluid and Water Absorption Effects on Poly(Methyl Methacrylate)/Hydroxyapatite Denture Base Composites. Express Polym. Lett. 2010, 4, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Machrowska, A.; Karpiński, R.; Jonak, J.; Szabelski, J.; Krakowski, P. Numerical Prediction of the Component-Ratio-Dependent Compressive Strength of Bone Cement. Appl. Comput. Sci. 2020, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Karpinski, R.; Szabelski, J.; Maksymiuk, J. Analysis of the Properties of Bone Cement with Respect to Its Manufacturing and Typical Service Lifetime Conditions. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 244, 01004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Harper, E.J.; Bonfield, W. Tensile Characteristics of Ten Commercial Acrylic Bone Cements. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2000, 53, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kühn, K.-D. Bone Cements up to Date Comparison of Physical and Chemical Properties of Commercial Materials; with 132 Tables; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2000; ISBN 978-3-540-67207-4. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sophie, H.; Yuhan, C.; Clemens, K.; Klaus-Dieter, K. Properties of Orthopaedic Cements Biomechanically Little Affected by Exceptional Use of Liquid Antibiotics. Orthop. Surg. 2021, 13, 2153–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. ISO 5833:2002; Implants for Surgery—Acrylic Resin Cements. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
  73. Rabiej, M. Analizy Statystyczne z Programami Statistica i Excel; Wydawnictwo Helion: Gliwice, Poland, 2018; ISBN 978-83-283-3922-4. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mccabe, J.F.; Walls, A. Applied Dental Materials; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-1-118-69712-2. [Google Scholar]
  75. Zafar, M.S. Prosthodontic Applications of Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA): An Update. Polymers 2020, 12, 2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Umeda, T.; Itatani, K.; Endo, H.; Takeuchi, H.; Mizutani, K.; Musha, Y. Effect of Blood Addition on the Biocompatibility of Calcium Phosphate Paste. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2006, 26, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kiyasu, K.; Takemasa, R.; Ikeuchi, M.; Tani, T. Differential Blood Contamination Levels and Powder–Liquid Ratios Can Affect the Compressive Strength of Calcium Phosphate Cement (CPC): A Study Using a Transpedicular Vertebroplasty Model. Eur. Spine J. 2013, 22, 1643–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Lodoso-Torrecilla, I.; van den Beucken, J.J.J.P.; Jansen, J.A. Calcium Phosphate Cements: Optimization toward Biodegradability. Acta Biomater. 2021, 119, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Karpiński, R.; Szabelski, J.; Krakowski, P.; Jonak, J. Effect of Physiological Saline Solution Contamination on Selected Mechanical Properties of Seasoned Acrylic Bone Cements of Medium and High Viscosity. Materials 2021, 14, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Miettinen, V.M.; Vallittu, P.K. Water Sorption and Solubility of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Denture Polymethyl Methacrylate Resin. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1997, 77, 531–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Stich, T.; Alagboso, F.; Křenek, T.; Kovářík, T.; Alt, V.; Docheva, D. Implant-Bone-Interface: Reviewing the Impact of Titanium Surface Modifications on Osteogenic Processes In Vitro and In Vivo. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 2022, 7, e10239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 15 02197 g001 550
Figure 1. Working times for manual mixing (not pre-chilled bone cement).
Figure 1. Working times for manual mixing (not pre-chilled bone cement).
Materials 15 02197 g001
Materials 15 02197 g002 550
Figure 2. Samples in order of degree of blood contamination (Palamed).
Figure 2. Samples in order of degree of blood contamination (Palamed).
Materials 15 02197 g002
Materials 15 02197 g003 550
Figure 3. Testing machine grips with bone cement sample.
Figure 3. Testing machine grips with bone cement sample.
Materials 15 02197 g003
Materials 15 02197 g004 550
Figure 4. Compressive strength of contaminated bone cements.
Figure 4. Compressive strength of contaminated bone cements.
Materials 15 02197 g004
Materials 15 02197 g005 550
Figure 5. Change in average compressive strength.
Figure 5. Change in average compressive strength.
Materials 15 02197 g005
Materials 15 02197 g006 550
Figure 6. Compressive modulus of elasticity of contaminated bone cements.
Figure 6. Compressive modulus of elasticity of contaminated bone cements.
Materials 15 02197 g006
Materials 15 02197 g007 550
Figure 7. Change in mean value of the compressive modulus of elasticity.
Figure 7. Change in mean value of the compressive modulus of elasticity.
Materials 15 02197 g007
Table
Table 1. Composition of examined cements.
Table 1. Composition of examined cements.
DePuy CMW3 GENTAMICINHeraeus Palamed
Powder
polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)
initiatorbenzoyl peroxide
radiopaque agentsbarium sulphatezirconium dioxide
colorant E141 (chlorophyllin)
antibioticgentamicin sulphate
Liquid
methyl methacrylate (MMA)
acceleratorN,N-dimethyl-ptoluidine (DMPT)
stabilizerhydroquinone
colorant E141 (chlorophyllin)
Table
Table 2. Compressive strength of examined cements in relation to the amount of contaminant.
Table 2. Compressive strength of examined cements in relation to the amount of contaminant.
BloodSaline
Contamination AmountMean Compressive Strength (MPa)SD (MPa)Mean Compressive Strength (MPa)SD (MPa)
CMW3
Gentamicin		0%75.471.2675.471.26
1%74.461.2882.981.76
2%68.773.2777.392.26
4%70.705.2566.272.08
6%66.141.0561.731.74
8%65.821.3559.671.27
10%56.073.4858.522.70
Palamed0%63.924.8963.924.89
1%69.281.7570.482.46
2%68.403.0672.913.81
4%64.392.4165.711.72
6%63.641.9655.212.79
8%51.111.5851.652.76
10%48.842.0044.502.09
Table
Table 3. Homogeneous groups of results of mean compressive strength.
Table 3. Homogeneous groups of results of mean compressive strength.
Blood Saline
Mean
Compressive Strength (MPa)		1234Mean
Compressive Strength (MPa)		12345
CMW3
Gentamicin		0%75.47 X CMW3
Gentamicin		0%75.47 X
1%74.46 X 1%82.98 X
2%68.77 X 2%77.39 X
4%70.70 XX 4%66.27 X
6%66.14 X 6%61.73X
8%65.82 X 8%59.67X
10%56.07X 10%58.52X
Palamed0%63.92 XX Palamed0%63.92 X
1%69.28 X1%70.48 XX
2%68.40 XX2%72.91 X
4%64.39 XX 4%65.71 XX
6%63.64 X 6%55.21 X
8%51.11X 8%51.65 X
10%48.84X 10%44.85X
Table
Table 4. Significant differences between results of mean compressive strength.
Table 4. Significant differences between results of mean compressive strength.
ContaminantAmount of Admixture/
Mean Compressive Strength
CMW3 GentamicinSaline0%1%2%4%6%8%10%
75.47482.97977.39266.27261.73159.67358.523
0% 0.000.620.000.000.000.00
1%0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00
2%0.620.00 0.000.000.000.00
4%0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00
6%0.000.000.000.00 0.540.09
8%0.000.000.000.000.54 0.95
10%0.000.000.000.000.090.95
Blood0%1%2%4%6%8%10%
75.47456.07468.76670.69866.14165.81656.074
0% 1.000.010.080.000.000.00
1%1.00 0.040.260.000.000.00
2%0.010.04 0.930.750.640.00
4%0.080.260.93 0.100.070.00
6%0.000.000.750.10 1.000.00
8%0.000.000.640.071.00 0.00
10%0.000.000.000.000.000.00
PalamedSaline0%1%2%4%6%8%10%
63.92170.48272.91465.70655.20751.65544.853
0% 0.010.000.940.000.000.00
1%0.01 0.780.090.000.000.00
2%0.000.78 0.000.000.000.00
4%0.940.090.00 0.000.000.00
6%0.000.000.000.00 0.370.00
8%0.000.000.000.000.37 0.00
10%0.000.000.000.000.000.00
Blood0%1%2%4%6%8%10%
63.92169.28168.39764.38763.63651.11448.844
0% 0.000.051.001.000.000.00
1%0.00 1.000.010.010.000.00
2%0.051.00 0.110.030.000.00
4%1.000.010.11 1.000.000.00
6%1.000.010.031.00 0.000.00
8%0.000.000.000.000.00 0.71
10%0.000.000.000.000.000.71
Color shows the values that are statistical significantly different; Bold means delimited columns present different values/describe different objects.
Table
Table 5. Compressive modulus of examined cements in relation to the amount of contaminant.
Table 5. Compressive modulus of examined cements in relation to the amount of contaminant.
BloodSaline
Contamination AmountMean
Compressive Modulus (MPa)		SD (MPa)Mean
Compressive Modulus (MPa)		SD (MPa)
CMW3
Gentamicin		0%985.6365.46985.6365.46
1%938.9244.442010.8354.60
2%921.4459.031788.5178.18
4%895.7749.501539.44171.37
6%848.4449.571461.00122.83
8%862.7137.281320.94106.20
10%794.8776.021296.67136.53
Palamed0%1179.82237.021179.82237.02
1%1456.79143.961381.56210.58
2%1328.59238.621410.47242.67
4%1129.35185.601255.44153.08
6%1122.43103.541017.85160.87
8%989.5393.831086.3092.30
10%1029.29139.58823.40135.13
Table
Table 6. Homogeneous groups of results of compressive modulus of elasticity.
Table 6. Homogeneous groups of results of compressive modulus of elasticity.
Blood Saline
Mean
Compressive Modulus (MPa)		123Mean
Compressive Modulus (MPa)		12345
CMW3
Gentamicin		0%985.63 XCMW3 Gentamicin0%985.63 X
1%938.92 XX1%2010.83 X
2%921.44 XX2%1788.51 X
4%895.77XXX4%1539.44 X
6%848.44XX 6%1461.00XX
8%862.71XX 8%1320.94X
10%794.87X 10%1296.67X
Palamed0%1179.82XX Palamed0%1179.82 XXX
1%1456.79 X1%1381.56 XX
2%1328.59 XX2%1410.47 X
4%1129.35XX 4%1255.45 XXX
6%1122.43XX 6%1017.85XX
8%989.53X 8%1086.30XXX
10%1029.29X 10%823.40X
Table
Table 7. Significant differences between results of compressive modulus of elasticity.
Table 7. Significant differences between results of compressive modulus of elasticity.
ContaminantAmount of Admixture/
Mean Compressive Strength
CMW3 GentamicinSaline0%1%2%4%6%8%10%
985.632010.81788.51539.41461.01320.91296.7
0% 0.000.000.000.000.000.00
1%0.00 0.020.000.000.000.00
2%0.000.02 0.010.000.000.00
4%0.000.000.01 0.880.030.01
6%0.000.000.000.88 0.330.17
8%0.000.000.000.030.33 1.00
10%0.000.000.000.010.171.00
Blood0%1%2%4%6%8%10%
985.63938.92921.44895.77848.44862.71794.87
0% 0.760.530.100.000.010.00
1%0.76 1.000.820.100.230.00
2%0.531.00 0.990.380.630.01
4%0.100.820.99 0.750.940.09
6%0.000.100.380.75 1.000.72
8%0.010.230.630.941.00 0.46
10%0.000.000.010.090.720.46
PalamedSaline0%1%2%4%6%8%10%
1179.81381.61410.51255.41017.81086.3823.40
0% 0.410.260.990.660.960.03
1%0.41 1.000.860.010.070.00
2%0.261.00 0.710.010.030.00
4%0.990.860.71 0.230.620.00
6%0.660.010.010.23 0.990.55
8%0.960.070.030.620.99 0.20
10%0.030.000.000.000.550.20
Blood0%1%2%4%6%8%10%
1179.81456.81328.61129.41122.4989.531029.3
0% 0.040.681.001.000.390.66
1%0.04 0.800.000.010.000.00
2%0.680.80 0.340.300.010.03
4%1.000.000.34 1.000.730.93
6%1.000.010.301.00 0.780.95
8%0.390.000.010.730.78 1.00
10%0.660.000.030.930.951.00
Color shows the values that are statistical significantly different; Bold means delimited columns present different values/describe different objects.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karpiński, R.; Szabelski, J.; Krakowski, P.; Jojczuk, M.; Jonak, J.; Nogalski, A. Evaluation of the Effect of Selected Physiological Fluid Contaminants on the Mechanical Properties of Selected Medium-Viscosity PMMA Bone Cements. Materials 2022, 15, 2197. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062197

AMA Style

Karpiński R, Szabelski J, Krakowski P, Jojczuk M, Jonak J, Nogalski A. Evaluation of the Effect of Selected Physiological Fluid Contaminants on the Mechanical Properties of Selected Medium-Viscosity PMMA Bone Cements. Materials. 2022; 15(6):2197. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062197

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karpiński, Robert, Jakub Szabelski, Przemysław Krakowski, Mariusz Jojczuk, Józef Jonak, and Adam Nogalski. 2022. "Evaluation of the Effect of Selected Physiological Fluid Contaminants on the Mechanical Properties of Selected Medium-Viscosity PMMA Bone Cements" Materials 15, no. 6: 2197. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062197

APA Style

Karpiński, R., Szabelski, J., Krakowski, P., Jojczuk, M., Jonak, J., & Nogalski, A. (2022). Evaluation of the Effect of Selected Physiological Fluid Contaminants on the Mechanical Properties of Selected Medium-Viscosity PMMA Bone Cements. Materials, 15(6), 2197. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062197

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop