Comparison of ASTM F2129 and ASTM F746 for Evaluating Crevice Corrosion

Crevice corrosion is one of the major mechanisms that drives implant failure in orthopedic devices that have modular interfaces. Despite the prevalence of crevice corrosion in modular interfaces, very little is known with regards to the susceptibility of different material combinations to participate in crevice corrosion. In this study, we compare two electrochemical methods, ASTM F2129, Standard Test Method for Conducting Cyclic Potentiodynamic Polarization Measurements to Determine the Corrosion Susceptibility of Small Implant Devices, and a modified version of ASTM F746, Standard Test Method for Pitting or Crevice Corrosion of Metallic Surgical Implant Materials, in their ability to induce crevice corrosion. Four commonly used metals, 316 stainless steel, commercially pure titanium (Ti grade 2), Ti-6Al-4V (Ti grade 5), and cobalt-chromium-molybdenum per ASTM F1537, Standard Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28Chromium-6Molybdenum Alloys for Surgical Implants (UNSR31537, UNSR31538, and UNSR31539), were used to form crevices with a rod and washer combination. As a control, the metal rod materials were tested alone in the absence of crevices using ASTM F2129 and the modified ASTM F746 method. As another control to determine if crevices formed with polymeric materials would influence crevice corrosion susceptibility, experiments were also conducted with metal rods and polytetrafluorethylene washers. Our results revealed more visible corrosion after ASTM F2129 than ASTM F746. Additionally, ASTM F746 was found to falsely identify crevice corrosion per the critical pitting potential when visual inspection found no evidence of crevice corrosion. Hence, ASTM F2129 was found to be more effective overall at evaluating crevice corrosion compared to ASTM F746.