ReviewBiomaterials and biosystems2021
Third body damage and wear in arthroplasty bearing materials: A review of laboratory methods.
Review in Biomaterials and biosystems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Clinical Applications of 3D-Printed Highly Porous Titanium for Off-the-Shelf Cementless Joint Replacement Prostheses.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Third Body Wear of an All-Polymer, PEEK-OPTIMA™ on Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene Total Knee Replacement.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Titanium Nitride Coatings on CoCrMo and Ti6Al4V Alloys: Effects on Wear and Ion Release.Lubricants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Functional performance of a bi-layered chitosan-nano-hydroxyapatite osteochondral scaffold: a pre-clinicalRoyal Society open science · 2024Article
- Experimental Methods for Studying the Contact Mechanics of Joints.BioMed research international · 2023Review
- Third body damage and wear in arthroplasty bearing materials: A review of laboratory methods.Biomaterials and biosystems · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Third body wear of arthroplasty bearing materials can occur when hard particles such as bone, bone cement or metal particles become trapped between the articulating surfaces. This can accelerate overall implant wear, potentially leading to early failure. With the development of novel bearing materials and coatings, there is a need to develop and standardise test methods which reflect third body damage seen on retrieved implants. Many different protocols and approaches have been developed to replicate third body wear in the laboratory but there is currently no consensus as to the optimal method for simulating this wear mode, hence the need to better understand existing methods. The aim of this study was to review published methods for experimental simulation of third body wear of arthroplasty bearing materials, to discuss the advantages and limitations of different approaches, the variables to be considered when designing a method and to highlight gaps in the current literature. The methods were divided into those which introduced abrasive particles into the articulating surfaces of the joint and those whereby third body damage is created directly to the articulating surfaces. However, it was found that there are a number of parameters, for example the influence of particle size on wear, which are not yet fully understood. The study concluded that the chosen method or combination of methods used should primarily be informed by the research question to be answered and risk analysis of the device.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.