Knee Replacement Research Paper

A polymer, metal, or ceramic could be potentially used for a knee implant. Each has its own benefits and disadvantages, because of this each material is utilized for a different part of the knee replacement. The three parts of the knee replacement are depicted in Figure 1 and are the femoral component, the plastic surface, and the tibial plate.
The material that is the best fit to use for a biodegradable friendly knee replacement wouldn’t be a metal, though currently most common used, because when metals degrade the particles are smaller in size and greater in quantity than other materials. These particles can be taken up by macrophages and eventually lead to immunological effects. Additionally they can diffuse through channels which leads to
The zirconium oxide allows for the regrowth of bone without the negative causations from degradation. This is because the wear particles from the zirconia result in less intense host responses. The ceramic also has a superior lubricity to metal implants. In comparison to a cobalt chromium knee replacement, the zirconium oxide reduced wear by 50% and helped polyethylene components retain their thickness (Vavrik, Landor,Denk). Additionally the zirconium oxide has a wear factor of 60% less than a stainless steel (Sal, Greenburg). This is beneficial because polyethylene failure is one of the main causes of knee replacement failure due to phagocytosis of the degradation molecules which causes increased bone resorption. Furthermore, these ceramic implants are also said to last 15-20 more years than the common cobalt chromium/polyethylene implants (Hui, Salmon). Another source for concern is fracture in the ceramic. Yet, reassuringly, breakage in ceramic femoral components hasn’t been reported, helping put to rest concern of the ceramics’ brittle