Alternative acrylic bone cement formulations for cemented arthroplasties: present status, key issues, and future prospects.
All the commercially available plain acrylic bone cement brands that are used in cemented arthroplasties are based on poly (methyl methacrylate) and, with a few exceptions, have the same constituents. It is well known that these brands are beset with many drawbacks, such as high maximum exotherm temperature, lack of bioactivity, and volumetric shrinkage upon curing. Furthermore, concerns have been raised about a number of the constituents, such as toxicity of the activator (N,N,dimethyl-p-toluidine) and possible involvement of the radiopacifier (BaSO(4) or ZrO(2) particles) in third-body wear. Thus, over the years, many research efforts have been expended to address these drawbacks, culminating in a large number of alternative formulations, which may be grouped into 16 categories. Although there are a number of reviews of the large literature that now exists on these formulations, each covers only some of the categories and none contains a detailed discussion of the germane issues. The objective of the present work, therefore, was to present a comprehensive and critical review of the whole field. In addition to succinct descriptions of the cements in each category, there are explicative summaries of literature reports, a detailed discussion of several key issues surrounding the potential for use of these cements in cemented arthroplasties, and a presentation of numerous ideas for future studies.
Lewis
Gladius
G
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Memphis, 316 Engineering Science Building, Memphis, Tennessee 38152, USA. glewis@memphis.edu
D000818:Animals; D001178:Arthroplasty / Q000639:trends; D002484:Cementation / Q000639:trends; D005544:Forecasting; D006801:Humans; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate / Q000145:classification
D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate