Gates E I, Carter D R, Harris W H
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984 Oct(189):294-9.
Tensile and fatigue studies were performed on four different preparations of acrylic bone cement: (1) surgical Simplex-P inserted into molds in the dough stage, (2) Zimmer Low Viscosity Cement (LVC) inserted in the liquid phase, (3) an experimental cement inserted in the dough phase, and (4) the same experimental cement inserted in the liquid phase. The void characteristics of the cements appeared to dictate their mechanical performance. While tests revealed no difference in the tensile strengths of the four cement preparations, small but statistically significant differences in mean fatigue life were observed. The experimental cement used in the dough stage exhibited superior fatigue characteristics when compared with Simplex and LVC. LVC had the poorest mechanical properties of the four cement groups. Since the specimen preparation procedures can markedly influence the cement void characteristics and, consequently, the mechanical properties, general statements about different cement types are offered with considerable reservations.
(1)处于面团期的外科用Simplex-P骨水泥插入模具中;(2)处于液相的Zimmer低粘度骨水泥(LVC);(3)处于面团期的一种实验性骨水泥;(4)处于液相的同一种实验性骨水泥。骨水泥的孔隙特征似乎决定了它们的力学性能。虽然测试显示四种骨水泥制剂的拉伸强度没有差异,但观察到平均疲劳寿命存在微小但具有统计学意义的差异。与Simplex和LVC相比,处于面团期使用的实验性骨水泥表现出更好的疲劳特性。LVC在四个骨水泥组中力学性能最差。由于试样制备程序会显著影响骨水泥的孔隙特征,进而影响力学性能,因此对不同类型骨水泥的一般性陈述需谨慎对待。