Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 3, 2025
Biotribological Testing and Analysis of Articular Cartilage Sliding against Metal for Implants
Published on: May 14, 2020
Alloys Used in Different Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction Replacement Prostheses Exhibit Variable
Mozart Queiroz Neto1, Simona Radice1, Deborah J Hall2
1Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Purpose:
Metallic temporomandibular joint replacement (TMJR) systems vary depending on design, material composition, and manufacturing methods such as casting, forging, and additive manufacturing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to measure the association between manufacturing process of TMJR systems in terms of microstructure and electrochemical properties.
Materials And Methods:
The sample was composed of new or surgically retrieved TMJ replacement devices of either titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) or cobalt-chromium-molybdenum (CoCrMo) alloy from 8 different manufacturers. The primary predictor variable was alloy type, according to its manufacturing process (wrought, cast, additively manufactured [AM]). The primary outcome variables were 1) microstructure (grain size, aspect ratio, and phase content) and 2) corrosion potential and current, polarization resistance, and capacitance. Differences between alloy groups were determined by t tests, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests.
Results:
We demonstrated that the TMJR CoCrMo and Ti6Al4V alloy microstructures can vary broadly within American Society for Testing and Materials specifications, where the components made of Ti6Al4V had 3 types of microstructures (equiaxial, bimodal, and martensitic) out of 10 samples, and the components made of CoCrMo had 2 types of microstructure (equiaxial and dendritic) out of 16 samples. Some CoCrMo alloys exhibited preferential corrosion sites, while wrought Ti6Al4V alloys trended toward a superior corrosion behavior (corrosion rate: 2 × 10-9 A/cm2, polarization resistance: 5,000,000 kΩcm2, and capacitance: 10 μSsa/cm2) compared with AM alloys (39 × 10-9 A/cm2, 1676 kΩcm2, 36 μSsa/cm2, respectively), where 4 samples of each group were tested and repeated 5 times. Among four AM devices, two exhibited a significantly inferior corrosion behavior.
Conclusions:
Although AM is an exciting emerging new technology that allows manufacturing of custom-made TMJR, their corrosion behavior is still inferior in comparison to that of traditional wrought alloys. Preventing corrosion is crucial because it can cause surface defects that may lead to implant fracture.
