Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

The Bone Matrix01:18

The Bone Matrix

5.4K
Bone contains a relatively small number of cells entrenched in a matrix of collagen fibers that provide an adherent surface for inorganic salt crystals. Both components of the matrix, organic and inorganic, contribute to the unusual properties of bone. Without collagen, bones would be brittle and shatter easily. Without mineral crystals, bones would flex and provide little support. This can be observed by an experiment: when the minerals of a bone are dissolved by soaking the bone in...
5.4K
Strength of Cement01:20

Strength of Cement

408
Strength tests for cement are not performed directly on neat cement paste due to difficulty in obtaining consistent, reliable specimens. Instead, cement is typically tested in the form of cement-sand mortar.
For compressive strength tests, ASTM C 109-05 standards prescribe a cement-sand mix ratio of 1:2.75 and a water/cement ratio of 0.485 for making 2-inch cubes. These cubes are mixed, cast, and cured in saturated lime water at 23°C until testing. Flexural strength testing, outlined in...
408
Bonding and Strength of Aggregate01:12

Bonding and Strength of Aggregate

420
The bond between aggregate particles and the cement matrix is significantly influenced by the shape and surface texture of the aggregates. High-strength concretes benefit from a rougher texture, which leads to stronger bonding due to greater adhesion. Angular aggregates with larger surface areas also enhance this bond. The bonding quality, however, is complex to assess as no universally accepted test exists. Good bonding is indicated when a crushed concrete specimen shows some aggregate...
420

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Different risk factors for early-onset adjacent segment disease at L3-4 and L5-S1 segments after isolated L4-5 lumbar fusion surgery: 2-year follow-up.

Journal of neurosurgery. Spine·2026
Same author

Robotic-Assisted C2 Laminar Screw Placement: Initial Experience and Accuracy Evaluation.

Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery·2026
Same author

The relationship between psychological safety, patient safety culture, and work engagement with patient safety outcomes: a cross-sectional study in a Japanese university hospital.

BMC health services research·2026
Same author

ROSE12, a novel anti-CTLA-4 FcγRs binding-enhanced antibody activated by extracellular adenosine triphosphate, shows tumor-selective regulatory T-cell depletion and antitumor efficacy without systemic immune activation.

Journal for immunotherapy of cancer·2026
Same author

Limited cervical laminectomy prevents postoperative delayed motor palsy: an experimental study using a rat model.

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society·2025
Same author

Anatomy of the Scaphotrapezial Ligament Complex and its Implications for Distal Scaphoid Resection.

The Journal of hand surgery·2025

Related Experiment Videos

Interfacial tensile strength between polymethylmethacrylate-based bioactive bone cements and bone.

Masaki Kamimura1, Jiro Tamura, Shuichi Shinzato

  • 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kawahara-cho 54, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan.

Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
|July 13, 2002
PubMed
Summary

This study compared two types of bioactive bone cements with standard PMMA cement. The researchers measured how strongly each cement adhered to bone in rabbits over time. They found that bioactive cements showed significantly higher strength than PMMA as early as 4 weeks after implantation. By 16 weeks, one of the bioactive cements reached a maximum strength of 12.39 kgf. Histological analysis showed direct bone-cement contact with no intervening layer for bioactive cements, while PMMA had fibrous tissue at the interface. These findings suggest that bioactive PMMA cements may offer better adhesion and could be a promising alternative in orthopedic surgery.

Keywords:
bone cement adhesionbioactive PMMAinterfacial strength measurementorthopedic biomaterials

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Experiment Videos

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic biomaterials development
  • Biomechanics of bone-cement interfaces
  • Tissue engineering in bone regeneration

Background:

Bone cement adhesion remains a critical challenge in orthopedic surgery. Standard polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cements often fail due to poor interfacial strength. Prior research has shown that PMMA lacks long-term bonding with bone tissue. This limitation has driven interest in bioactive alternatives. However, the exact mechanisms of adhesion improvement remain unclear. No prior work had resolved how specific filler materials influence interfacial strength over time. This gap motivated the investigation into bioactive glass and ceramic fillers. The study aimed to address this knowledge gap through novel experimental methods.

Purpose Of The Study:

The study aimed to evaluate the interfacial tensile strength of two bioactive PMMA-based cements compared to conventional PMMA. The specific problem addressed was the lack of durable bonding between standard PMMA and bone. The motivation stemmed from clinical needs for longer-lasting implants. The researchers sought to determine if bioactive fillers could enhance adhesion. They focused on comparing the performance of GBC and AWC with PMMA over time. The goal was to assess whether these cements could form stronger interfaces. The study's design allowed for longitudinal measurement of tensile strength. The results could inform the development of improved orthopedic materials.

Main Methods:

The study used a novel in situ polymerization method to assess interfacial strength. Two types of bioactive cements—GBC and AWC—were compared with PMMA. The cements were placed in frames attached to rabbit tibial metaphyseal cortex. The frames ensured controlled cement-bone contact during polymerization. Tensile strength was measured at 4, 8, and 16 weeks post-implantation. Load detachment data were collected using standardized mechanical testing. Histological analysis was performed to examine interface morphology. The experimental setup allowed for direct comparison of adhesion properties.

Main Results:

The interfacial tensile strength of GBC and AWC exceeded PMMA from 4 weeks post-implantation. At 16 weeks, GBC reached a maximum of 12.39 ± 1.79 kgf. AWC also showed significantly higher strength than PMMA at all time points. Both bioactive cements demonstrated increasing strength over time. Histology revealed direct bone-cement contact with no intervening layer for GBC and AWC. In contrast, PMMA showed fibrous tissue at the interface. The absence of intervening layers suggests stronger bonding. These findings indicate improved adhesion with bioactive fillers.

Conclusions:

The authors propose that bioactive PMMA cements have higher interfacial strength than conventional PMMA. The results suggest that bioactive fillers may enhance adhesion at the bone-cement interface. The absence of fibrous tissue supports stronger bonding with bone. The increase in tensile strength over time indicates progressive adhesion. The study implies that bioactive cements could serve as a promising alternative. The findings suggest potential clinical applications in orthopedic surgery. The results align with the hypothesis that bioactive materials improve adhesion. The study contributes to understanding interfacial mechanics in bone cements.

The study found that bioactive cements showed significantly higher interfacial tensile strength than PMMA at 4 weeks, reaching 12.39 ± 1.79 kgf for GBC at 16 weeks.

The study tested bioactive glass beads (GBC) and apatite-wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic powder (AWC) as fillers.

The rabbit tibial metaphyseal cortex provided a standardized model for measuring interfacial strength in a controlled biological environment.

Histology confirmed direct bone-cement contact for bioactive cements and fibrous tissue formation with PMMA, supporting the tensile strength findings.

Strength was measured by determining the load required to detach the cement from the bone at 4, 8, and 16 weeks post-implantation.

The authors suggest that bioactive PMMA cements may serve as a promising alternative to conventional PMMA due to improved interfacial adhesion.