| 1. |
- Kjellson, Fred, et al.
(author)
-
Bone cement X-ray contrast media: A clinically relevant method of measuring their efficacy.
- 2004
-
In: Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B - Applied Biomaterials. - : Wiley. - 1552-4981 .- 1552-4973. ; 70B:2, s. 354-361
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It is important to compare different contrast media used in bone cement according to their ability to attenuate X-rays and thereby produce image contrast between bone cement and its surroundings in clinical applications. The radiopacity of bone cement is often evaluated by making radiographs of cement in air at an X-ray tube voltage of 40 kV. We have developed a method for ranking contrast media in bone cement simulating the clinical situation, by (1) choosing the same X-ray tube voltage as used in clinical work, and (2) using a water phantom to imitate the effects of the patients' soft tissue on the X-ray photons. In clinical work it is desirable to have low radiation dose, but high image contrast. The voltage chosen is a compromise, because both dose and image contrast decrease with higher voltage. Three contrast media (ZrO2, BaSO4, and Iodixanol) have been compared for degree of "image contrast." Comparing 10 wt % contrast media samples at an X-ray tube voltage of 40 kV, ZrO2 produced higher image contrast than the other media. However, at 80 kV, using a water phantom, the results were reversed, ZrO2 produced lower image contrast than both BaSO4 and Iodixanol. We conclude that evaluations of contrast media should be made with voltages and phantoms imitating the clinical application. (C) 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Macdonald, Warren, 1954, et al.
(author)
-
Variation in surface texture measurements.
- 2004
-
In: Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials. - : Wiley. - 1552-4973. ; 70:2, s. 262-9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Surface texture influences cellular response to implants, implant wear, and fixation, yet measurement and reporting of surface texture can be confusing and ambiguous. Seven specimens of widely different surface textures were submitted to three internationally renowned laboratories for surface texture characterization. The specimens were from dental implants, orthopedic implants, and femoral heads. Areas to be measured were clearly marked; simplified instructions were supplied but specific measurement parameters were not requested. Techniques used included contact profilometry, two- and three-dimensional laser profilometry, and atomic force microscopy. Four to thirteen parameters were reported, 2D or 3D, including R(a) or S(a); only three were common to all centers. The results varied by as much as +/-300-1000%, depending on technique and surface type. Some surfaces were not measurable by some techniques. One dental implant surface was reported with R(a) of 0.17, 0.85, 1.9, and 4.4 microm. The CoCr femoral head ranged from an R(a) of 0.011 to 0.10 microm; the zirconia head from 0.006 to 0.05 microm. Similar variability was reported for the other parameters. Useful surface texture characterization requires reporting of all measurement parameters. Comparisons between studies may be compromised if differences in technique are not considered.
|
|
