Abstract
The paper compares four alloys in orthopaedic implant use on the basis of their performance in laboratory tests. The alloys compared were cast Co–Cr–Mo, powder metallurgy (PM) Co–Cr–Mo, Ti 318 and Ti 550. Tensile, corrosion fatigue, and corrosion tests were carried out and the effect of heat treatment and of surface treatment was investigated. The corrosion fatigue tests ranked the alloys in the following order of merit (1) Co–Cr–Mo (PM), (2) Ti 550, (3) Ti 318, and (4) cast Co–Cr–Mo. The corrosion tests demonstrated for cast Co–Cr–Mo the effect of passivation, steam sterilization, and texturing, and for Ti 318 the effect of oxidizing, anodizing, and acid etch/shot peening. It was concluded that for joint replacement applications requiring the highest corrosion fatigue strength regardless of cost and neglecting the possible importance of elastic modulus, Co–Cr–Mo (PM) was best. For applications requiring ease of manufacture and allowing a lower corrosion fatigue strength, cast Co–Cr–Mo was the material of choice. For most other applications and in particular where high corrosion fatigue strength at a reasonable cost was required, the Ti alloys offered worthwhile advantages.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
