1. Introduction
Total hip replacement (THR) was a breakthrough in orthopedic surgery, transforming the treatment of debilitating hip conditions by restoring function and alleviating pain. Over the decades, advancements in biomaterials and implant design have significantly improved the outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) [1]. However, the increasing population of younger, more active patients undergoing THR has shifted the focus toward increasing implant life to meet the demands of a dynamic lifestyle [2]. Wear at the implant interfaces remains the primary challenge, driving research into innovative strategies, such as surface coatings, to mitigate wear, enhance biocompatibility, and improve implant performance [3].
THR is a medical procedure aimed to relieve pain and weakness caused by conditions such as congenital deformities, osteoarthritis, dislocations, fractures and other problems related to the hip. The procedure consists of the surgical removal of the diseased portion from the hip joint and their replacement with prosthesis.
Hip implant assembly consists of several components, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These include the stem (lower component), the femoral head, the liner (which acts as a bearing surface) and the acetabular cup (upper component) forming a ball joint. Anatomically, the socket refers to the cup-shaped pelvic bone called the acetabulum, while the ball represents the head of the femur.
The hip components can be fabricated from various materials, including metals, ceramics and polymers. Commonly used materials are cobalt-chromium, titanium, stainless steel, aluminum oxide, zirconia, UHMWPE and XLPE, each chosen for its distinct properties [6,7,8].
Wear mechanisms are a critical factor affecting hip implant lifespan. These wear mechanisms—abrasive, adhesive, corrosion wear and fatigue—lead to material degradation, mechanical instability and adverse biological reactions. For example, abrasive wear results from the presence of particles, such as bone cement, that cause surface damage and increase implant friction [9]. Adhesive wear, involving material transfer between surfaces, further reduces implant stability, while fatigue wear results from repeated mechanical loading that degrades surface integrity. Corrosive wear, a consequence of chemical reactions in the biological environment, contributes to implant loosening and requires revision surgery [10].
The researchers also analyzed the properties of the synovial fluid and lining in joint arthroplasty patients, focusing on changes in lubrication after implantation. Altered synovial fluid viscosity and reduced lubrication efficiency were directly associated with implant wear [11]. The cumulative impact of these wear mechanisms underscores the need for advanced material solutions that can withstand mechanical and chemical stress over long periods.
Surface coatings have proven to be a promising solution for solving these problems. Hip implant coatings are characterized by properties such as wear resistance, corrosion protection, biocompatibility, non-toxicity, tissue integration and increased adhesion to the substrate, as shown in Figure 3. By applying a thin wear-resistant layer to implant surfaces, the coatings significantly reduce friction, increase wear resistance and advance the interface among the implant and the immediate biological tissues [12,13].
The advancements in surface coatings for hip implants are well documented, with a notable evolution in the findings over the years. Early studies primarily focused on the use of titanium and cobalt-chromium alloys, emphasizing their mechanical strength and biocompatibility. For instance, research from the early 2000s highlighted the effectiveness of titanium coatings in enhancing osseointegration, but these studies often overlooked the challenges posed by wear debris and infection [14,15].
Figure 3Essential characteristics of coating materials. Reproduced from [16] under CC 4.0.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
In contrast, recent studies have shifted towards multifunctional coatings that address both mechanical and biological challenges. For example, the introduction of hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings has shown to significantly improve bone integration compared to traditional titanium coatings, as evidenced by studies conducted in the last decade. Diamond-like carbon (DLC) coatings offer excellent wear resistance and low friction, effectively minimizing chipping. Titanium nitride (TiN) coatings are valued for their resistance to ion leaching and their biocompatibility, especially in wearable applications. Multilayer coatings based on aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and the anodic layer enhances Tantalum’s (TA) corrosion resistance in normal and inflammatory conditions, further improving implant durability and performance [17]. This shift reflects a growing recognition of the importance of biological compatibility alongside mechanical properties [18].
The performance of surface coatings is affected by various factors, including coating material, application technique, thickness and surface roughness. Together, these factors determine critical properties like adhesion strength, wear resistance and toughness that depend on the structural integrity of the coating applied to the substrate. For example, α-Al2O3 coating on Ti-6Al-4V alloys show improved performance due to the formation of a gradient reaction layer at the interface, as shown in Figure 4. This layer is crucial for improving adhesion and minimizing interface-related failure.
For computational analysis, a 3D model of the hip implant was developed with coatings applied to the stem and head. Figure 5 shows the placement of the coatings at various locations along with a detailed cross-sectional view. This visualization provides valuable insight into the distribution of the coatings and their potential functional impact.
Advances in deposition techniques, such as PVD, CVD, plasma spraying, etc., are improving the quality and durability of coatings, and facilitating the development of implants with customized properties for specific patient needs.
A computational tool, finite element analysis (FEA) is used to analyze the behavior of complex structures under various boundary conditions [21,22]. In the context of hip implants, FEA plays an important role in evaluating the impact of surface coatings on total hip replacements. By integrating in vitro data and the experimental results obtained, FEA enables accurate predictions of wear evolution and wear depth. Despite limitations such as unidirectional wear modeling, this approach advances material optimization and design refinement for improved design [23,24].
This review aims to comprehensively analyze the role of surface coatings in improving hip implant quality through FEA. By examining the mechanisms of wear, the properties of various coating materials and the influence of coating parameters, this study highlights the critical role of coatings in advancing implant technology [25]. Emphasizing the intersection of material science, biomechanics, and clinical outcomes, the review seeks to inform future innovations in hip implant design to improve patient outcomes and address the rising global demand for THR.
2. Surface Coating for Hip Implant
Hip implants are made from materials such as titanium and cobalt-chromium metals for durability, ceramics for strength and low wear, and polymers such as polyethylene for cushioning. In addition, composites are used to increase overall performance. Despite advances, implant failure remains a significant problem. Unlike wear, mechanical loading is critical in determining the durability and service life of hip implant coatings. Under cyclic loading conditions typical of the human body, coatings must withstand the stresses of everyday activities, such as walking, running or climbing stairs. Excessive or uneven loading can lead to wear, delamination and fatigue, reducing coating performance and reducing implant life.
The remarkable hardness and wear resistance of titanium nitride (TiN) and diamond-like carbon (DLC) coatings enable them to withstand high contact pressures. However, repeated mechanical stress can create micro cracks, which lead to coating degradation over time. Similarly, hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings, although excellent for osseointegration, can exhibit brittle fractures under high loads, affecting their bond strength with the implant surface.
Smoother surfaces reduce pitting while rougher textures can trap debris and cause degradation. Residual stresses from treatments, such as deep rolling, increase fatigue resistance and delay crack formation [26]. Moreover, the formation of biofilms is a significant challenge in implant-associated infections, often resulting in implant failure. The stages of biofilm are shown in Figure 6. These biofilms, comprising microbial communities encased in extracellular matrices, are highly resistant to both antimicrobial treatments and immune responses [27].
This resistance to antimicrobial treatment and immune responses complicates eradication. Infection-resistant coatings on implants can prevent biofilm formation [28]. Brush-based polymer coatings or hydrogel coatings repel bacteria and proteins, while antimicrobial agents, such as antibiotics, can kill bacteria and prevent them from attaching, as shown in Figure 7. However, resistance to antibiotics limits their use [29,30].
Metal nanoparticles such as silver and copper offer strong antibacterial properties, but their uncontrolled release of ions poses a risk of toxicity [32]. Antimicrobial peptides provide a biocompatible alternative, although chemically bound peptides may show reduced efficacy compared to physically incorporated peptides. Emerging strategies focus on multiline defense systems, combining biofilm prevention, inhibition of quorum sensing, and disruption of established biofilms [33,34].
Long term challenges of antimicrobial coatings on implants include bacterial resistance, cytotoxicity and interference with bone integration. Continuous use can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, while some substances may damage the surrounding cells, causing inflammation or implant failure. Strategies for solving these problems include controlled release mechanisms, biocompatible agents and cytotoxicity testing. Strengthening resistant, durable coatings, monitoring the level of infection and research of innovative materials can improve the safety, efficiency and results for the patient [34,35].
Research has also investigated bone-implant bonding with apatite-coated implants through in vivo animal studies and histological analysis. The results showed improved osseointegration and a stronger bone–implant interface due to the apatite coatings. The study concluded that apatite coatings increase implant stability and accelerate the healing process, making them highly effective for orthopedic use [36].
2.1. Surface Coating Techniques
Discrepancies in findings are attributed to variations in coating techniques and the materials used. Earlier studies predominantly utilized simpler deposition methods, which may have resulted in less effective coatings. Recent advancement in coating techniques aims to improve the surface properties of hip implants. Techniques such as PVD, CVD, electrophoretic deposition (EPD), laser engineered net shaping (LENS), plasma spraying, laser cladding and magnetron sputtering (MS) have demonstrated superior adhesion and reduced porosity, leading to improved performance [37,38]. Figure 8 shows widely used various coating materials for hip implants.
PVD is a vacuum-based technique where a material is physically transferred to a substrate by condensing a vaporized source. Common PVD methods include sputtering and evaporation. For example, PVD-deposited TiN coatings significantly improve wear resistance and reduce friction on hip implants. In addition, this process allows precise control of coating thickness and uniformity, enabling the production of durable and highly adherent films. PVD coatings are ideal for prolonging the life of implants under mechanical stress and minimizing the release of ions that could cause unwanted tissue reactions [40].
CVD uses chemical reactions to deposit thin films on a substrate. The process takes place at elevated temperatures in a controlled atmosphere where gaseous precursors react to form a solid coating. For example, silicon carbide and DLC coatings produced by CVD are valued for their exceptional hardness and low-friction properties. Additionally, CVD’s ability to coat complex geometries makes it a versatile choice for complex implant designs [16,41,42].
EPD is a commonly used technique where charged particles move under an electric field to form uniform and compact coatings. The effectiveness of this technique depends on the stability of the particle suspension, affected by factors such as particle concentration, size and pH. EPD is used to apply hydroxyapatite coatings to titanium stems for osseointegration and ceramic particles such as alumina and zirconia to femoral heads for wear resistance [43].
LENS enables the creation of structurally graded coatings such as CoCrMo-Ti-6Al-4V composites. These graded structures minimize wear-induced osteolysis by providing a localized improvement in wear resistance [44]. Similarly, pulsed laser deposition (PLD) produces thin films with precise control of thickness and composition. For example, ZrO2 coatings deposited on titanium alloys demonstrate uniformity and controlled film properties with substrate temperature affecting coating performance [42,45,46].
Laser cladding applies ceramic–metal composite coatings to titanium alloys. Coatings made from transition metal nitrides such as TiN or carbides such as titanium carbide (TiC) exhibit exceptional hardness and excellent wear resistance. For example, TiN provides a balance between toughness and corrosion resistance, making it suitable for long-term implant use, while TiC, despite its hardness, suffers from brittleness, which limits its use. Laser plating ensures a strong metallurgical bond and controlled processing, which contributes to durability [47].
Plasma spraying is used to create composite coatings that hybridize the properties of metal and ceramic. A Ti–TiN laminate composite created by reactive plasma spraying demonstrates both the hardness of ceramics and the toughness of metals, thus addressing the disadvantages of earlier materials. By controlling the atmospheric gases during injection, the coatings achieve the desired structural and functional properties, thereby increasing the performance of the implant [48].
Thermal treatment of hip implant coatings increases adhesion, wear resistance, and mechanical stability. Applied to such coatings as α-Al2O3 on Ti-6Al-4V alloys, this technique creates a durable gradient reaction layer that reduces implant wear and corrosion. It ensures reliable performance, and minimizes failures and revision operations, which is essential for long-term success in biomedical applications [49].
When applied to CoCrMo alloys formed by selective laser melting, magnetron sputtering works well for depositing coatings such as TiN. Surface roughness and mechanical properties can be improved by fine-tuning parameters such as laser power and scan speed. For example, CoCrMo alloys with coating showed increased fatigue strength and corrosion resistance [50,51]. Table 1 exhibits details of coating methods, method classification, and their merits and demerits.
Hip implant coatings applied through EPD, PVD and CVD increase the implant’s hardness, wear resistance and biocompatibility. EPD ensures uniform coatings, improves adhesion and mechanical strength, while heat treatment increases durability after deposition. PVD techniques, such as spraying, lead to precise TiN coatings, reducing wear and friction, resulting in improving longevity. CVD produces ultra hard coatings, such as silicon carbide and DLC, offering better wear resistance and low friction. HA coatings, especially via these methods, promote osseointegration and provide strong bone implant links. Their combination of mechanical stability and biocompatibility make them essential for increasing longevity and implant performance, reducing the risks of osteolysis and improving orthopedic results.
In conclusion, advanced coating techniques, including PVD, CVD, EPD, LENS, plasma spraying, laser plating and magnetron sputtering, offer a variety of approaches to achieve these goals. Each method contributes in a unique way, from precise thickness and composition control in PVD and CVD, to the creation of structurally graded or hybridized coatings using LENS and plasma spraying. Coating methods such as laser plating and magnetron sputtering further improve mechanical properties and wear resistance. The integration of these innovative coating methods ensures that hip implants meet the demanding clinical demands of modern healthcare, promising better patient outcomes and extended implant life. As research continues, these technologies will evolve to offer even greater efficiency and reliability for orthopedic solutions.
2.2. Types of Surface Coating on Hip Implant
Different types of surface coatings for hip implants, categorized under metal coatings, ceramic coatings, DLC coatings and hybrid coatings, with their merits and demerits, are as mentioned in Figure 9.
The diverse properties of these coatings underline their significance in meeting the demanding requirements of hip implants. While each coating type has distinct merits and demerits, their collective innovation points towards a future of increasingly reliable and biocompatible orthopedic solutions.
The most commonly used coating materials are covered in Table 2, which includes information about the authors, objectives, coating materials, methodology used, key findings and conclusions of each study from earlier work to the most recent research work on hip implants.
Recent advances in surface coatings for hip implants have attracted considerable attention in the literature, highlighting their critical role in improving the durability of implants. Numerous studies have investigated innovative materials and techniques aimed at improving biocompatibility, wear resistance and infection prevention. For example, HA coatings have been shown to significantly promote osseointegration, with high crystallinity HA demonstrating improved bone implant integration and better clinical outcomes.
The development of multifunctional coatings is a new research focus. Coatings that combine antibacterial properties with superior mechanical performance, such as TiO2 doped with silver ions, have shown promise in addressing infection and wear simultaneously. Other coatings, including α-alumina layers, boride coatings, and Ti-TiN composites, have shown improvements in hardness, toughness, and adhesion. In addition, ZrO2, ZrN and TiSiN coatings have improved antibacterial properties and reduced release of cobalt ions. The gradient structures and CrN coatings show excellent wear resistance, which further contributes to the durability of the implant.
Multifunctional coatings, such as TI-TIN composites, increase the effectiveness of overall hip replacement by improving wear, biocompatibility and corrosion protection. Studies show that they outperform traditional Co-28Cr-6Mo alloys, reducing friction, wear residues and the risk of implant failure. Their lamellar structure balances hardness and toughness, while their inherent porosity helps lubrication. Biocompatibility tests confirm their safety and the minimization of inflammatory reactions. This progress is engaged in key orthopedic challenges and ensures better long-term patient results [48].
However, problems such as coating delamination, aging effects and wear debris formation remain, especially in systems such as TiN and zirconia. While ZTA coatings have surpassed alumina in wear resistance, they face aging-related limitations. PEEK-Al2O3 coatings and corundum blasted stems have shown potential to improve durability and clinical outcomes, while CoCr implants continue to pose a risk of ion toxicity.
Advanced coatings such as CII surfaces exhibited effective reduction in wear and damage, and highlight the need for optimized surface treatments. These improvements underscore the importance of continuous innovation and customized approaches to maximize the life and performance of hip implants [84,85,86].
2.3. Types of Surface Modification on Hip Implant
By improving the mechanical properties of orthopedic implants, surface treatment is necessary to enhance their function. Techniques such as deep rolling, microblasting, micro-dimple patterns, protein-repellent polymeric and ball polishing optimize surface properties, while advanced coatings and bioactive strategies, such as thermohydrogen treatment and vacuum ion–plasma nitriding, combat bacterial colonization and reduce friction. These innovations significantly improve the lifetime and functionality of the implant and offer promising solutions for orthopedic applications. Figure 10 shows various surface modification techniques with its merits and demerits.
Selecting the right coating for hip implants is crucial to balancing strength, wear resistance, biocompatibility and durability for improved orthopedic outcomes. Coating materials for hip implants include metal (Ti, CoCr alloys), ceramics (HA, Zirconia), polymers (PE, PMMA), diamond carbon (DLC) and hybrids, each with unique mechanical properties and challenges. Metals offer high strength but can release toxic ions; ceramics provide excellent biocompatibility, but can be fragile; polymers are flexible, but susceptible to wear; DLC coatings are hard and biocompatible, but costly and demanding to maintain; hybrid coatings combine strengths, but have problems with facial production and stability interface. The choice of a suitable coating is essential for optimizing the implant’s performance in challenges such as resistance of wear and biocompatibility, which eventually improves the patient’s results in orthopedic procedures [87,88,89].
Each technique offers unique benefits, such as enhanced hardness, fatigue resistance and antibacterial properties, while also presenting limitations, such as complexity, cost or susceptibility to specific mechanical stresses. Despite these challenges, the collective innovations in surface modification techniques underscore a promising future in orthopedic implant technology. Ongoing research and interdisciplinary approaches remain crucial to refining these methods for improved clinical outcomes and broader applications. Table 3 illustrates data from related literature to provide a comprehensive perspective, illuminating prior research, and guiding future advancements to address clinical challenges and evolving needs effectively.
Surface treatments affect the corrosion and wear resistance of biomaterials. Deep rolling increases friction and fatigue resistance due to smoother surfaces, while microblasting reduces corrosion resistance in Ti-6Al-4V alloys. Surfaces with dimple impression improve lubrication and implant life in metal-on-metal (MoM) prostheses, and reduce friction coefficients by up to 35%. Polymer coatings and bioactive strategies provide three lines of defense against bacterial colonization: non-adhesive coatings for selective cell attachment, antimicrobial agents for disrupting bacterial processes, and strategies targeting established biofilms. Ultra-thin multi-functional coatings integrate these defense agents. Ball polishing and thermohydrogen treatments increase the wear resistance of Ti-6Al-4V and the surface properties, thus eliminating wear of the material against polyethylene. Vacuum ion-plasma nitriding creates durable, adhesive films resistant to mechanical stress, improving the life and performance of orthopedic implants.
3. Computational Method in Surface Coating
FEA is widely used to assess the mechanical performance of various coatings on hip implants, particularly in analyzing stress distribution, wear resistance and overall durability under varying conditions. It provides insights into the impact of coating material types and thicknesses on implant behavior during activities like walking, running, sitting or climbing stairs.
The effects of surface coating to improve wear life of hip implant are greatly influenced by the coating materials and coating thickness, as revealed in research studies.
Coating Materials:
Variations in material properties, such as stiffness and elasticity, play a crucial role in load transfer and fatigue resistance. Studies using PEEK coatings revealed significant stress shielding reductions compared to uncoated titanium implants [20].
Coating Thickness:
Variations in coating thickness influence wear rates and stress distribution, with thinner coatings (<10 µm) often showing enhanced compatibility for load-bearing regions [20,94].
Simulation of static and dynamic activities, including sitting, standing, walking, running, or climbing stairs, enables prediction of failure points and wear patterns.
3.1. Recent Developments in Surface Coating
Key advancements include the use of multifunctional coatings that not only enhance osseointegration but also prevent bacterial adhesion, thereby addressing the critical issues of infection and aseptic loosening. For an example of the optimization of multilayer coatings: TiN and ZrO2 improve performance under cyclic loading [20,88,95].
One promising area is the development of antibacterial hydrogel coatings, which mimic natural tissues and serve as effective drug delivery systems. These coatings can prevent implant-associated infections by targeting bacterial biofilms, which are a major cause of persistent infections in orthopedic implants. The hydrogel coatings have been shown to improve biocompatibility, reduce inflammation and offer long-term efficacy against bacterial resistance [33].
Surface morphology coatings such as porous coatings and nano-structured surfaces are increasingly used to promote osseointegration. These coatings provide a rougher surface, which enhances bone attachment and integration, crucial for long-term implant stability. Techniques like microarc oxidation and 3D printing have been utilized to create these porous and biomimetic surfaces, improving both the mechanical properties and biological response of the implants [96]. Recent development in hydrogel coatings act as a protective film on 3D-printed Ti layers enhancing corrosion resistance in all conditions [97].
Titanium-based coatings with improved crystallinity, such as HA, continue to be refined. High-crystallinity HA coatings reduce dissolution rates and enhance bone integration, contributing to more stable and durable implants. Recent research has also emphasized controlling the porosity and surface roughness of these coatings to optimize their performance [96,98,99].
FEA is used to critically evaluate surface coatings by analyzing key parameters such as stress distribution, wear rate and fatigue safety factors. The results, as summarized in Table 4, provide insight into the performance and reliability of the coatings. Table 4 includes information about the authors, objectives, methodology used, key findings and conclusions of each study.
Wear rates for the samples measured 17.14 ± 1.23 mg/106 cycles and 19.39 ± 0.79 mg/106 cycles, with cumulative wear values of 63.70 mm3 and 64.02 mm3 after 3 million cycles. The calibrated wear coefficient was 5.32 × 10−10 mm3/N mm. Computational simulations were consistent with experimental findings, but showed differences in wear distribution, highlighting the need to account for multidirectional displacement and strain hardening. CFRPC stems improved proximal femoral stress transfer and minimized distal femoral stress shielding, resulting in stress shielding factors of 1.34 (proximal) and 0.85 (distal). The more specific example of the application of a FEA simulation is carried out on PEEK coating material. PEEK coatings improved load transfer, reduced stress shielding and increased the effective von Mises stress in cancellous bone by 81–92%. Chemical wear accounted for 25% to 32% of material loss over 4 million cycles. Coated implants improved fatigue safety by at least 12.73%, with carbon/PEEK coatings under dynamic conditions. Electrochemical corrosion significantly affected the tribocorrosion behavior of the head and neck [101].
3.2. Controlling Parameters in Surface Coating
In surface coating of hip implants, controlling parameters such as coating material selection, thickness, deposition technique and process conditions are crucial for optimizing performance.
Coating Material: The choice of material directly affects the implant’s life and biological compatibility. Different materials, like Hydroxyapatite (HA) and Titanium Nitride (TiN), offer specific benefits: HA coatings enhance osseointegration, while TiN provides wear resistance [102].
Coating Thickness: The thickness of coatings affects both their wear resistance and mechanical properties. For example, thicker HA coatings may improve bone integration but could affect fatigue strength. Conversely, thinner coatings often maintain better mechanical performance but may not provide sufficient bioactivity.
Deposition Process: Methods like thermal plasma spraying and micro plasma spraying control the size, porosity and crystallinity of coatings. Parameters such as flow rate, spraying distance and material flow rate can significantly alter coating characteristics. A high degree of crystallinity in HA coatings is preferred for better bone integration [103].
Advanced modeling and experiments are used to refine these parameters, ensuring optimal results for better implant quality and patient outcomes. For further reading, you can explore detailed studies on surface coatings and deposition techniques in orthopedic applications.
3.3. Surface Coating Optimization
FEA helps in the surface coating optimization of hip implants, which is a crucial aspect of enhancing their mechanical properties and overall durability. Factors such as coating material, thickness, deposition methods and the porosity of the coatings are key to achieving optimal performance. Materials like HA and titanium alloys are commonly used, with high crystallinity in HA coatings being preferred for better osseointegration. Additionally, deposition techniques like plasma spraying and microplasma spraying need to be carefully controlled to maintain uniformity and ensure high-quality coatings. Optimization algorithms and FEA play a significant role in predicting stress distribution, load transfer and the long-term behavior of implants under dynamic conditions [102,103].
4. Challenges and Future Directions
Advances in surface coatings for hip implants present several challenges that need to be addressed. One of the main challenges is in achieving a balance between wear resistance and biocompatibility, which coatings such as TiN and DLC have demonstrated excellently. For example, studies have shown that while TiN coatings reduce friction and wear, they may not promote optimal cell adhesion compared to more bioactive coatings such as HA. This trade-off highlights the need for coatings that not only withstand mechanical stress but also support biological integration.
Another significant challenge is the prevention of infection and biofilm formation. The formation of biofilms on implant surfaces can lead to chronic infections and implant failure. Recent studies have investigated antimicrobial coatings, such as silver-doped titanium dioxide, which have shown efficacy in preventing bacterial adherence while maintaining mechanical integrity. This enhancement significantly bolstered the corrosion protection capabilities of titanium-based biomaterials, promising improved durability and performance for biomedical applications [104]. However, the potential for microbial resistance and toxicity due to ion release remains a concern, requiring further research into the long-term effects of such coatings.
Further, dynamic loads that implants experience over time can lead to delamination and wear of coatings, which requires further research of materials that can withstand these forces without risking integrity.
Future directions in surface coating technology should focus on the development of multifunctional coatings that integrate mechanical and biological properties. For example, the use of nanostructured coatings has shown promise in increasing surface roughness and promoting osteoconductivity, which may improve osseointegration. Research into bioactive glass coatings is also gaining momentum, as these materials can release ions that promote bone growth while providing a protective barrier against wear.
In addition, new developments in deposition methods, such as CVD and atomic layer deposition, offer chances to produce consistent, superior coatings with tailored qualities. These methods can facilitate the development of coatings with controlled porosity and thickness and optimize their performance under physiological conditions.
5. Conclusions
The article reviews advances in surface coatings for hip implants and highlights their key role in enhancing the performance and durability of total hip arthroplasty. It emphasizes that these coatings improve fundamental aspects, such as mechanical properties, biocompatibility and wear resistance, which are vital to the success of hip implants. Remarkable findings show that potential materials, such as titanium nitride and titanium carbide, effectively reduce wear and friction, thereby extending implant life. In addition, sputtered carbon coatings, especially Graphit-iC, exhibit excellent tribological properties that enable low wear rates at high contact pressures.
Thermohydrogen treatment and vacuum ion-plasma nitriding are highlighted for their ability to optimize the surface structure of the titanium alloys often used in hip prostheses. In addition, multifunctional coatings that improve osseointegration while preventing bacterial adherence address key issues such as infection and aseptic loosening. The study uses FEA to optimize factors such as coating material, thickness and application methods, and provides insight into stress distribution and load transfer in implants. However, challenges remain, including preventing coating delamination, mitigating ionic toxicity, and addressing biofilm formation. These issues underscore the need for further research and innovation in coating technologies.
The implications of these findings are significant for clinical practice. Improved surface treatments could improve patient outcomes, reduce the number of revision surgeries, and increase the quality of life of individuals undergoing hip replacement procedures. Additionally, the challenges identified in the study present opportunities for future research to refine deposition techniques, optimize material composition, and integrate computational simulations to design coatings that fight infection while maintaining mechanical integrity.
The article highlights the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between materials scientists, biomedical engineers, and clinicians to advance orthopedic implant technologies. It advocates continuous advancement in surface treatment technologies to meet the needs of an increasingly active population and optimize the performance and longevity of hip implants.
C.K.N. and N.N. conceived the idea, created the graphs and figures and drafted the manuscript. L.G.K. and S.S. developed the theory, prepared the tables. S.B.N. and S.S.B. verified the analytical methods and supervised the study’s findings. All authors discussed the overall manuscript, contributed to the final manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors would like to thank the Department of Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, for the computing resources provided to carry out this work.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
| Al2O3 | Alumina |
| CFRPC | Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composite |
| CoCrMo | Cobalt-chromium |
| CoC | Ceramic-on-ceramic |
| COF | Coefficient of friction |
| CoP | Ceramic-on-polyethylene |
| CoM | Ceramic-on-metal |
| CII | Carbon ion implantation |
| CrN | Chromium nitride |
| CVD | Chemical vapor deposition |
| DLC | Diamond like carbon |
| EPD | Electrophoretic deposition |
| FEA | Finite element analysis |
| HA | Hydroxyapatite |
| LENS | Laser Engineered Net Shaping |
| MS | Magnetron sputtering |
| MoM | Metal-on-metal |
| MoP | Metal-on-polyethylene |
| PEEK | Polyetheretherketone |
| PVD | Physical vapor deposition |
| TA | Tantalum |
| TiN | Titanium nitride |
| TiC | Titanium carbide |
| TiO2 | Titanium oxide |
| TiSiN | Titanium Silicium nitride |
| THA | Total hip arthroplasty |
| THR | Total hip replacement |
| THT | Thermohydrogen treatment |
| UHMWPE | Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene |
| XLPE | Highly cross-linked UHMWPE |
| ZTA | Zirconia toughened alumina |
| ZrN | Zirconium nitride |
| ZrO2 | Zirconia |
| 3D | Three dimensional |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
![View Image - Figure 1. Arthritic hip and prosthetic hip [4].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/2/qhdjb?_a=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&_s=CNfpoA5NR7hiuoUlTdDfK6UfnBY%3D "View Image - Figure 1. Arthritic hip and prosthetic hip [4].")
![View Image - Figure 2. Schematic of femoral THR implementation. Reproduced from [5] under CC 3.0.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/4/qhdjb?_a=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&_s=L4sCjB840fHRxnWQXUlT3UObxbQ%3D "View Image - Figure 2. Schematic of femoral THR implementation. Reproduced from [5] under CC 3.0.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Schematic of femoral THR implementation. Reproduced from [5] under CC 3.0.
![View Image - Figure 4. Cross-sectional view, α-Al2O3 layer on the Ti-6Al-4V alloy [19].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/6/qhdjb?_a=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&_s=cbQE%2BaFWmSj8GaT5OPaGnolq7Rw%3D "View Image - Figure 4. Cross-sectional view, α-Al2O3 layer on the Ti-6Al-4V alloy [19].")
![View Image - Figure 5. A 3D model of hip implant with coating, cross-sectional view at stem and head. Reproduced from [20] under CC 4.0.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/8/qhdjb?_a=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&_s=m7yRvG0h2JDGOC5hEm4ca%2FzzAEo%3D "View Image - Figure 5. A 3D model of hip implant with coating, cross-sectional view at stem and head. Reproduced from [20] under CC 4.0.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. A 3D model of hip implant with coating, cross-sectional view at stem and head. Reproduced from [20] under CC 4.0.
![View Image - Figure 6. Stages of biofilm formation. Reproduced from [28] with permission from Elsevier.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/10/qhdjb?_a=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&_s=nAYGmje1j7I61SfTJxBO0W5uinY%3D "View Image - Figure 6. Stages of biofilm formation. Reproduced from [28] with permission from Elsevier.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Stages of biofilm formation. Reproduced from [28] with permission from Elsevier.
![View Image - Figure 7. Illustration of bacterial coating model releasing antimicrobial agents. Reproduced from [31] under CC 4.0.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/12/qhdjb?_a=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&_s=lNFVB3qNs9I%2BmAuv5emjVdN9wUI%3D "View Image - Figure 7. Illustration of bacterial coating model releasing antimicrobial agents. Reproduced from [31] under CC 4.0.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Illustration of bacterial coating model releasing antimicrobial agents. Reproduced from [31] under CC 4.0.
![View Image - Figure 8. Various coating methods in producing coating materials for hip implant. Reproduced from [39] under CC 3.0.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/14/qhdjb?_a=ChgyMDI1MDgyNTA2NTUxNzM3MDozMjg1OTMSBzEzODMzMjMaCk9ORV9TRUFSQ0giDTIxNi43My4yMTYuOTcqBzUwNDY4NjkyCjMxNzEyMjI2ODI6C0lubGluZUltYWdlQgEwUgZPbmxpbmVaA0lMSWIEVEhVTWoKMjAyNS8wMS8wMXIKMjAyNS8xMi8zMXoAggEgUC0xMDAwMDg0LTIwMTM5NS1TVEFGRi1udWxsLW51bGySAQZPbmxpbmXKAWdNb3ppbGxhLzUuMCBBcHBsZVdlYktpdC81MzcuMzYgKEtIVE1MLCBsaWtlIEdlY2tvOyBjb21wYXRpYmxlOyBDbGF1ZGVCb3QvMS4wOyArY2xhdWRlYm90QGFudGhyb3BpYy5jb20p0gESU2Nob2xhcmx5IEpvdXJuYWxzmgIHUHJlUGFpZKoCG09TOkVNUy1GdWxsVGV4dC1nZXRGdWxsVGV4dMoCD0FydGljbGV8RmVhdHVyZeICAPICAPoCAVmCAwNXZWKKAxxDSUQ6MjAyNTA4MjUwNjU1MTczNzA6OTEwNzM1&_s=qzUoc9CKH0ylp6jzmGpBcOgZAXo%3D "View Image - Figure 8. Various coating methods in producing coating materials for hip implant. Reproduced from [39] under CC 3.0.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Various coating methods in producing coating materials for hip implant. Reproduced from [39] under CC 3.0.
![View Image - Figure 9. Various coating materials for hip implant with their merits and demerits [25,31,66].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/16/qhdjb?_a=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&_s=PQbQ%2FDqr5ubJVDUzAO2t0JvpEFA%3D "View Image - Figure 9. Various coating materials for hip implant with their merits and demerits [25,31,66].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 9. Various coating materials for hip implant with their merits and demerits [25,31,66].
Enlarge this image.Figure 10. Various surface modification techniques with their merits and demerits.
Commonly used coating methods for implant materials.
| Method | Classification of Methods | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical vapor deposition | Plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition | Effortlessly coat complex geometries | Delamination issues |
| Physical vapor deposition | Electron beam evaporation | Easily coat complex geometries | Delamination issues |
| Plasma spraying | - | Cost-effective | Poor adhesion |
| Electrophoretic deposition | Electrophoretic code position | Reduced temperature | Costly |
| Sol-gel | Dip coating | Coating intricate geometries | Poor wear resistance |
Surface coating in hip implant.
| References | Objective | Materials | Methodology | Key Findings | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Aim to develop durable hip joints lasting 25–30 years for active patients. | Monolithic alumina, alumina-zirconia composites and Co-Cr alloys | Micro-arc oxidation methods and Vickers hardness tester | Structure: A dense α-alumina layer (10–15 µm thick) on Ti-6Al-4V alloy. | Research outcomes may facilitate the development of dense α-alumina femoral heads and other advanced biomedical implants. |
| [ | Evaluate characteristics and wear performance of borided Ti-6Al-4V alloy | Ti-6Al-4V alloy | Pack boriding | The boride film achieved a hardness of over 2000 HV, significantly higher than the base metal’s 315 HV. | Borided Ti alloys significantly reduced wear losses and friction coefficients and demonstrated excellent tribological performance in both dry and lubricating sliding environments. |
| [ | The study of compositionally graded CoCrMo alloy coatings on porous Ti-6Al-4V alloy. | CoCrMo alloy and Ti-6Al-4V alloy | LENS™ | Lowest wear rates (5.07 to 7.99 × 10−8 mm3/Nm) observed for gradient pins with 86% CoCrMo alloy. Co release during wear testing ranged between 0.38 and 0.91 ppm for gradient structures, comparable to 100% CoCrMo alloy (0.25 to 0.77 ppm). | After wear testing, higher total wear resulted in higher amounts of Co in simulated body fluid (SBF). A promising method for increasing implant wear resistance while reducing Co release is the use of laser-processed gradient structures. |
| [ | Evaluate the effects of zirconia thin films on Ti-6Al-4V bio-alloy, comparing uncoated and zirconia-coated samples. | Ti-6Al-4V bio-alloy and zirconia-coated samples | PLD | Significant reduction in wear rate (49%) at 5N load. | ZrO2 coating improves mechanical, tribological and antibacterial properties enhancing the performance of Ti-6Al-4V bio-alloys for biomedical applications. Reduced surface energy contributed to bacterial growth inhibition. |
| [ | Investigate the effects of CoCr nanoparticles and cobalt ions on monocytes. | Co-Cr-Mo alloy, CoCr nanoparticles and cobalt ions | Cytokine production measured by ELISA | Not recommended for resurfacing of implant. | CoCr implants may face risks of failure due to combined toxic effects of cobalt ions and nanoparticles, influencing implant life and patient outcomes. |
| [ | To study layer-by-layer coating produced using electrophoretic deposition on Co-Cr-Mo alloy. | Co-Cr-Mo, Coatings include HA/Al2O3 and bioactive glasses (BGs) | Electrophoretic deposition | During the antibacterial test, the alumina inhibited the BG antibacterial effect. | This shows that, by reducing the rate at which the Co-Cr-Mo alloy substrate corroded in the simulated body fluid (SBF) solution, the coating successfully improved the corrosion resistance. High thickness was achieved by using EPD to deposit the factional graded three layers (BG+Composite +BG). |
| [ | The use of hard surface coatings improves the corrosion resistance of the CoCrMo alloy and reduces the associated release of metal ions. | CoCrMo alloy with TiSiN and ZrN coatings | Cathodic arc evaporation technique (arc-PVD) | ZrN: >10× improvement. | Hard coatings significantly enhance fretting corrosion resistance and reduce metal ion release, potentially mitigating ALTRs in metal hip implants. Both coatings significantly reduced Co ion release during fretting corrosion tests. |
| [ | Developed Ti-TiN composite coatings with enhanced wear resistance against UHMWPE liners. | Ti-TiN composite coatings, Ti-6Al-4 V alloy substrates and UHMWPE | Plasma spraying deposition | Mechanical properties are intermediate between hard ceramics and tough metals, improvement in fracture toughness and wear compared to pure metals and alloys. | Ti-TiN composite coatings are promising for improving wear resistance, durability, and biocompatibility in THR applications. |
| [ | Analyze four TiN-coated prosthetic femoral heads retrieved during revision surgery and assess their surface properties and performance. | TiN-coated | Scanning Electron Microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry | Damaged areas showed a saw-toothed surface profile with an average tooth height of 1.5 µm. | Femoral heads made of TiN-coated titanium alloy are not strong enough to survive third-body wear processes in vivo, leading to greater debris production and coating failure. |
| [ | To create a Ti coating on TiCN reinforced Ti-6Al-4V alloy using laser cladding and evaluate its microstructure and wear properties. | TiCN and Ti-6Al-4V alloy | Laser cladding | Coating’s average hardness is 3–6× higher than the substrate. | The TiCN/Ti coating produced by laser cladding demonstrates improved hardness and wear resistance compared to the Ti-6Al-4V substrate. |
| [ | The study on wear performance of TiN, TiCN, and CrN coatings compared using a wear simulation machine under different experimental conditions. | TiN, TiCN and CrN coatings | Wear simulation | CrN coatings offer superior wear resistance compared to TiN and TiCN by a factor of 1.5–2, depending on experimental conditions. | Due to its greater wear resistance, CrN represents a possible replacement for TiN and TiCN coatings in specific applications. |
| [ | Investigates the in vivo wear performance of TiN coating on a hip implant retrieved postmortem after 1 year of THA in a low-demand patient. | TiN coating | Wear simulation | TiN-coated femoral heads can generate wear debris as delaminated surface asperities, leading to adhesive wear. | |
| [ | Investigate how hardness of TiN and TiC coatings affects friction and wear coefficients in microabrasive ball crater wear tests. | AISI D2 tool steel, TiN and TiC coating | Ball-cratering micro-abrasive wear tests. | The friction coefficient values, which ranged between μ = 0.4 and μ = 0.9, with average values between 0.6 and 0.74, were not significantly affected by the hardness of the coatings. Also for “tool steel” AISI D2+TiN. | Compared to the TiC-coated sample, the TiN-coated sample showed lower wear coefficient values (kt, ks, and kc) due to its increased hardness. The cause of the fluctuation of the wear coefficient of the coating (kc) can be either the increased thickness of the TiC coating or its reduced hardness. |
| [ | To study the effect of TiN coating on corrosion behavior. | CoCrMo alloy and TiN coating | XRD and SEM | The thickness of the coating was approximately 1.44 μm. | TiN coating is beneficial for short-term corrosion protection and wear resistance under low loads, but its thinness limits its long-term durability and effectiveness under higher loads. |
| [ | Examined three variants: | CoCrMo and Ti-6Al-4V Alloys | Wear tested on bovine serum lubricant. | TiN coatings significantly reduced wear by 20–40%, depending on the substrate composition. | Post-treatment is essential for TiN coatings, as untreated HiPIMS coatings resulted in high polyethylene wear rates. |
| [ | The study on Alumina and ZTA evaluated as load-bearing surfaces for hip implants. | Alumina and ZTA | Wear simulation | Alumina balls exhibited significant wear marks, and a greater roughness increase (20× the initial value) compared to ZTA (2–3× the initial value). ZTA performed well under no aging and 3 h of artificial aging, but showed weaknesses after 20 h of aging, indicating limitations in prolonged use. | ZTA exhibited lower volumetric wear and roughness compared to alumina. |
| [ | The study on ceramic coatings on MOP hip implants aim to reduce wear and infection. | Ceramic coatings on MOP | Gross polyethylene wear assessed via radiographic and visual inspection. | Implants with gross polyethylene wear (10 samples) revised due to acetabular component failure. | Loss of coating on metal femoral heads observed in some retrieved implants. |
| [ | The study compares the tribological performance of three alloys—316L, Ti-6Al-4V, and CoCrMo | 316L, Ti-6Al-4V and CoCrMo | A reciprocating wear tester. | Wear Resistance: | Ti-6Al-4V, despite its biocompatibility, exhibits inferior sliding contact performance compared to 316L and CoCrMo. |
| [ | To improve the tribological characteristics of THR articular surfaces in order to minimize wear. | Zirconia Coatings | Twelve different metallic-coating combinations were tested | CP-Ti with one layer of zirconia caused less mass loss of UHMWPE compared to uncoated alloys and alloys with two zirconia layers. | Meta-analysis suggested that the zirconia coating thickness for the two-layered samples have exceeded the critical threshold leading to poorer performance in wear resistance. |
| [ | Study of fretting wear and nano-scratch tests used to simulate wear behavior. | Ti-6Al-4V coated and DLC | SEM, AFM, Raman and IR spectroscopy. | Coatings recovered fully at 60 mN load, but showed partial ploughing and delamination at 400 mN. At RH 10%, friction is highest at 0.4 but it drops below 0.1 under water, beneficial for biomedical applications. | Good adhesion to Ti-6Al-4V substrate. |
| [ | To address MoM arthroplasty challenges like wear debris and corrosion by using CII and DLC films. | CII and DLC | High-contact-pressure wear tests | Co–Cr–Mo alloy hardness improved by 1.42× in CII samples and 1.85× in DLC samples. | CII-coated surfaces show potential as a durable hard coating for articulating joint implants. Demonstrated lower friction, reduced wear rates and higher damage resistance compared to uncoated and DLC-coated alloys under high pressure. |
| [ | Investigates low deposition temperature sputtered carbon coatings (Graphit-iC coatings) with remarkable tribological properties. | Carbon coatings (Graphit-iC coatings) | SEM, High-resolution transmission electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction. | Coatings exhibit low wear rates under loads of 80 N in pin-on-disc tests, corresponding to contact pressures exceeding 2.6 GPa. | A novel application will result from the combination of these low-wear, low-friction, high-load solid lubricant coatings. |
| [ | Study on PEEK-Al2O3 composite coatings deposited on 316L stainless steel via EPD. | PEEK-Al2O3 composite coatings and 316L stainless steel | EPD | PEEK-Al2O3 coatings outperformed pure PEEK films in chlorine environments. | EPD is a cost-effective method for producing durable PEEK-Al2O3 coatings with enhanced mechanical and corrosion-resistant properties. Higher alumina content results in micro cracks and weak Al2O3-Al2O3 particle contact, reducing mechanical integrity. |
| [ | Study to compare HA-coated and conventionally blasted cementless femoral stems. | HA coated | Radiographic | For the conventional strain and the HA-coated strain, the mean initial strain drop was 1.27 ± 0.95 mm and 0.59 ± 0.56 mm, respectively. | A cementless stem with a conventional blasted surface ensures rigid fixation and excellent clinical and radiological results, without the need for HA coating. |
Literature study on surface modification of hip implant.
| References | Objective | Methodology | Key Findings | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Investigate the effect of surface treatments on the corrosion behavior of metallic biomaterials. | Compressive RSs-deep rolling and micro blasting. Corrosion behavior assessed through repeated anodic polarization tests. | Surface treatments affected corrosion behavior. Deep rolling combines smoother surfaces with potential improvements in fretting and fatigue resistance. | Surface treatments minimally affected CoCrMo corrosion. Micro blasting reduced resistance Ti-6Al-4V with lower potential, increased current. |
| [ | Investigate the MoM hip joints with different surface textures using theoretical predictions and experimental methods. | Experiments conducted with a computer-controlled friction simulator. | The best results were achieved with surface texture parameters: Depth: 17 ± 1.5 µm, Width: 40 ± 5 µm, Distance between textures: 375 µm | Experimental and theoretical results confirm that ground surfaces reduce friction. Textured surfaces enhance MoM performance. |
| [ | Promote target tissue cell attachment (e.g., osteogenic cells for bone-contact implants). Prevent bacterial adhesion through multi-line defense strategies. | Ultrathin multifunctional prepolymerNCO-sP(EO-stat-PO) obtained from electrospinning | Three Lines of Defense: | Ultrathin multifunctional NCO-sP(EO-stat-PO)-based surface coatings offer a potential platform for integrating multiple lines of defense. |
| [ | Recent advances in surface treatment strategies focus on the development of infection-resistant coatings for biomedical implants. | Protein-repellent polymer coatings, such as polymer brushes and hydrogels, prevent bacteria and biofilms from adhering. | Surface coatings serve as reservoirs for bactericides, releasing them over time or as needed to prevent bacterial colonization and kill adhered bacteria. | Polymer brush-based or hydrogel coatings repel bacteria and prevent biofilm formation. |
| [ | Evaluate the COF for hip joint prostheses with various material combinations. | Pendulum hip simulator on 28-mm and 36-mm diameter prostheses. | MoM: 24% COF reduction compared to non-dimpled Brown prostheses. | Improved lubrication and reduced friction in dimpled MoM prostheses due to enhanced fluid film formation. Increased COF for MoP. |
| [ | Enhance wear resistance of titanium alloys (Ti-6Al-4V) through ball burnishing. | Burnishing speed, feed, force and number of passes studied for their effect on wear resistance and friction. | Specific wear rate reduced by 52%. | Ball burnishing significantly improves wear resistance and surface properties of Ti-6Al-4V alloy. |
| [ | Investigate the effects of THT and vacuum ion–plasma nitriding on the volume and surface structure of Ti-6Al-4V ball heads. | THT produced a sub microcrystalline structure. | Eliminated material wear during friction tests with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene. | Combined thermohydrogen treatment and nitriding significantly enhances hardness, surface smoothness, and wear resistance of Ti-6Al-4V ball heads. |
FEA carried out on coating material of hip implant.
| References | Objective | Software Used | Key Findings | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | To compare in vitro hip wear testing with a computational analysis that considers the behavior of UHMWPE at 37 °C. | Ansys Fluent 12.0 | Wear rates for the specimens were 17.14 ± 1.23 mg/106 cycles and 19.39 ± 0.79 mg/106 cycles, with cumulative wear values after 3 million cycles of 63.70 mm3 and 64.02 mm3 respectively. | Computational simulations accurately predicted the maximum damage depth and location. |
| [ | Analyze the impact of varying femoral stem materials (CFRPC vs. Ti-6Al-4V) on stress transmission using finite element analysis (FEA). | Ansys 2023 R1 | With stress shielding values of 1.34 (proximal) and 0.85 (distal), CFRPC stems improved the distribution of stress in the proximal femur while decreasing stress in the distal femur. Furthermore, compared to a completely Ti-6Al-4V femoral stem, CFRPC showed reduced maximum stress levels. | Using materials with bone-like mechanical properties, such as CFRPC, improves stress transmission, reduces stress shielding, and allows for customized prosthesis designs tailored to patient-specific bone characteristics. |
| [ | Effect of combining a metallic stem with a PEEK coating proposed. | COMSOL Multiphysics© software | The effective von Mises stress in the cancellous bone increased by 81–92% across the full volume and by 47–60% in the proximal zone of the implant. | A hip implant with a PEEK coating may last longer, improve load transfer to the bone, and reduce stress shielding. |
| [ | Investigate the impact of assembly force on tribocorrosion behavior, incorporating both mechanical and chemical material removal. | ABAQUS 2017 | Chemical wear contributed 25% to 32% to material loss after 4 million cycles; mounting force above 4 kN limits further reduction. | Electrochemical corrosion affects the tribocorrosion behavior in the head and neck region, with maximum micromotion occurring in the superolateral region. |
| [ | Validate the design concept using finite element analysis (FEA) to compare fatigue behavior of hip implant stems with composite (carbon/PEEK) and polymeric (PEEK) coatings during various activities (standing up, walking, and climbing stairs). | Ansys 2019 R1 | Coated implants improved fatigue safety factor by at least 12.73% compared to uncoated implants. | Standing up activity caused the worst implant fatigue behavior. |
References
1. Hall, R.M.; Siney, P.; Unsworth, A.; Wroblewski, B.M. The association between rates of wear in retrieved acetabular components and the radius of the femoral head. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med.; 1998; 212, pp. 321-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1243/0954411981534097]
2. Kuster, M.S. Exercise recommendations after total joint replacement: A review of the current literature and proposal of scientifically based guidelines. Sports Med.; 2002; 32, pp. 433-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200232070-00003]
3. Toh, S.M.S.; Ashkanfar, A.; English, R.; Rothwell, G. The relation between body weight and wear in total hip prosthesis: A finite element study. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. Update; 2022; 2, 100060. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2022.100060]
4. Sivasankar, M.; Aravindhan, A.; Gowthaman, K.; Karthigeyan, T.; Kumar, K.S. Design and fabrication of cementless hip prosthesis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science Engineering and Management Research (ICSEMR); Chennai, India, 27–29 November 2014; pp. 1-3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSEMR.2014.7043571]
5. Hua, X.; Li, J.; Wang, L.; Jin, Z.; Wilcox, R.; Fisher, J. Contact mechanics of modular metal-on-polyethylene total hip replacement under adverse edge loading conditions. J. Biomech.; 2014; 47, pp. 3303-3309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.08.015] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25218504]
6. Jackson, J. Father of the modern hip replacement: Professor Sir John Charnley (1911-82). J. Med. Biogr.; 2011; 19, pp. 151-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jmb.2011.011021]
7. Dowson, D. New joints for the Millennium: Wear control in total replacement hip joints. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med.; 2001; 215, pp. 335-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1243/0954411011535939] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11521758]
8. Baykal, D.; Siskey, R.; Haider, H.; Saikko, V.; Ahlroos, T.; Kurtz, S. Advances in tribological testing of artificial joint biomaterials using multidirectional pin-on-disk testers. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.; 2013; 31, pp. 117-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.05.020] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23831149]
9. Sathishkumar, S.; Paulraj, J.; Chakraborti, P.; Muthuraj, M. Comprehensive Review on Biomaterials and Their Inherent Behaviors for Hip Repair Applications. ACS Appl. Bio Mater.; 2023; 6, pp. 4439-4464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.3c00327] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37871169]
10. Wood, R.J.K. Tribo-corrosion of coatings: A review. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys.; 2007; 40, pp. 5502-5521. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/40/18/S10]
11. Kung, M.S.; Markantonis, J.; Nelson, S.D.; Campbell, P. The synovial lining and synovial fluid properties after joint arthroplasty. Lubricants; 2015; 3, pp. 394-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/lubricants3020394]
12. Sivasankar, M.; Arunkumar, S.; Sathishkumar, S.; Bakkiyaraj, V.; Muruganandam, A. A Review on Total Hip Replacement. Int. Res. J. Adv. Eng. Technol.; 2016; 2, pp. 589-642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13686.80969]
13. Skjöldebrand, C.; Tipper, J.L.; Hatto, P.; Bryant, M.; Hall, R.M.; Persson, C. Current status and future potential of wear-resistant coatings and articulating surfaces for hip and knee implants. Mater. Today Bio; 2022; 15, 100270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100270]
14. Merola, M.; Affatato, S. Materials for Hip Prostheses: A Review of Wear and Loading Considerations. Materials; 2019; 12, 495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12030495] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30764574]
15. Jakovljević, S.; Landek, D. Special Issue: Tribological Coatings—Properties, Mechanisms, and Applications in Surface Engineering. Coatings; 2023; 13, pp. 14-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings13020451]
16. Saba, T.; Saad, K.S.K.; Bin Rashid, A. Precise surface engineering: Leveraging chemical vapor deposition for enhanced biocompatibility and durability in biomedical implants. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e37976. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37976]
17. Bordbar-Khiabani, A.; Bahrampour, S.; Mozafari, M.; Gasik, M. Surface functionalization of anodized tantalum with Mn3O4 nanoparticles for effective corrosion protection in simulated inflammatory condition. Ceram. Int.; 2022; 48, pp. 3148-3156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.10.088]
18. Ghosh, S.; Abanteriba, S. Status of surface modification techniques for artificial hip implants. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater.; 2016; 17, pp. 715-735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14686996.2016.1240575] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28228866]
19. Khanna, R.; Ong, J.L.; Oral, E.; Narayan, R.J. Progress in wear resistant materials for total hip arthroplasty. Coatings; 2017; 7, 99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings7070099]
20. Anguiano-Sanchez, J.; Martinez-Romero, O.; Siller, H.R.; Diaz-Elizondo, J.A.; Flores-Villalba, E.; Rodriguez, C.A. Influence of PEEK Coating on Hip Implant Stress Shielding: A Finite Element Analysis. Comput. Math. Methods Med.; 2016; 2016, 6183679. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6183679] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27051460]
21. Corda, J.V.; Chethan, K.; Shenoy, S.; Shetty, S.; Bhat, S.; Zuber, M. Fatigue Life Evaluation of Different Hip Implant Designs Using Finite Element Analysis. J. Appl. Eng. Sci.; 2023; 21, pp. 896-907. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5937/jaes0-44094]
22. Göktaş, H.; Subaşi, E.; Uzkut, M.; Kara, M.; Biçici, H.; Shirazi, H.; Chethan, K.N.; Mihçin, Ş. Optimization of Hip Implant Designs Based on Its Mechanical Behaviour. Proceedings of the the International Conference of the Polish Society of Biomechanics; Warsaw, Poland, 8–10 September 2021; pp. 37-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86297-8_4]
23. Reginald, J.; Kalayarasan, M.; Chethan, K.N.; Dhanabal, P. Static, dynamic, and fatigue life investigation of a hip prosthesis for walking gait using finite element analysis. Int. J. Model. Simul.; 2023; 43, pp. 797-811. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02286203.2023.2212346]
24. Corda, J.V.; Chethan, K.N.; Bhat N, S.; Shetty, S.; Shenoy, S.; Zuber, B.M. Finite element analysis of elliptical shaped stem profile of hip prosthesis using dynamic loading conditions. Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express; 2023; 9, 065028. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/acfe14] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37769637]
25. Bailey, J.; Oliveri, A.; Levin, E. The Future of Biologic Coatings for Orthopaedic Implants Stuart. Bone; 2013; 23, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.01.074]
26. Bormann, T.; Mai, P.T.; Gibmeier, J.; Sonntag, R.; Müller, U.; Kretzer, J.P. Corrosion behavior of surface-treated metallic implant materials. Materials; 2020; 13, 2011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13092011]
27. Narayana, S.V.V.S.N.; Srihari, S.V.V.S. A Review on Surface Modifications and Coatings on Implants to Prevent Biofilm. Regen. Eng. Transl. Med.; 2019; 6, pp. 330-346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40883-019-00116-3]
28. Narayana, P.S.V.V.S.; Srihari, P.S.V.V. Biofilm resistant surfaces and coatings on implants: A. review. Mater. Today Proc.; 2019; 18, pp. 4847-4853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.07.475]
29. Bruellhoff, K.; Fiedler, J.; Möller, M.; Groll, J.; Brenner, R.E. Surface coating strategies to prevent biofilm formation on implant surfaces. Int. J. Artif. Organs; 2010; 33, pp. 646-653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/039139881003300910]
30. Bohara, S.; Suthakorn, J. Surface coating of orthopedic implant to enhance the osseointegration and reduction of bacterial colonization: A review. Biomater. Res.; 2022; 26, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40824-022-00269-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35725501]
31. Rafiq, N.M.; Wang, W.; Liew, S.L.; Chua, C.S.; Wang, S. A review on multifunctional bioceramic coatings in hip implants for osteointegration enhancement. Appl. Surf. Sci. Adv.; 2022; 13, 100353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsadv.2022.100353]
32. Zirari, T.; Trabadelo, V. A review on wear, corrosion, and wear-corrosion synergy of high entropy alloys. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e25867. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25867] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38384552]
33. Ahmadabadi, H.Y.; Yu, K.; Kizhakkedathu, J.N. Surface modification approaches for prevention of implant associated infections. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces; 2020; 193, 111116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.111116]
34. Scarano, A.; Piattelli, M.; Vrespa, G.; Caputi, S.; Piattelli, A. Bacterial adhesion on titanium nitride-coated and uncoated implants: An in vivo human study. J. Oral Implant.; 2003; 29, pp. 80-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2003)029<0080:BAOTNA>2.3.CO;2]
35. Ferraris, S.; Spriano, S. Antibacterial titanium surfaces for medical implants. Mater. Sci. Eng. C; 2016; 61, pp. 965-978. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.12.062] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26838926]
36. Geesink, R.; de Groot, K.; Klein, C. Bonding of bone to apatite-coated implants. J. Bone Jt. Surgery. Br. Vol.; 1988; 70-B, pp. 17-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.70B1.2828374] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2828374]
37. Choy, K.L. Chemical vapour deposition of coatings. Prog. Mater. Sci.; 2003; 48, pp. 57-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6425(01)00009-3]
38. Lima, M.S.F.; Folio, F.; Mischler, S. Microstructure and surface properties of laser-remelted titanium nitride coatings on titanium. Surf. Coat. Technol.; 2005; 199, pp. 83-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2004.08.206]
39. Ching, H.A.; Choudhury, D.; Nine, J.; Abu Osman, N.A. Effects of surface coating on reducing friction and wear of orthopaedic implants. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater.; 2014; 15, 014402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1468-6996/15/1/014402] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27877638]
40. Saad, K.S.K.; Saba, T.; Bin Rashid, A. Application of PVD coatings in medical implantology for enhanced performance, biocompatibility, and quality of life. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e35541. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35541]
41. Hauert, R. A review of modified DLC coatings for biological applications. Diam. Relat. Mater.; 2003; 12, pp. 583-589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-9635(03)00081-5]
42. Nemcakova, I.; Litvinec, A.; Mandys, V.; Potocky, S.; Plencner, M.; Doubkova, M.; Nanka, O.; Olejnickova, V.; Sankova, B.; Bartos, M. et al. Coating Ti6Al4V implants with nanocrystalline diamond functionalized with BMP-7 promotes extracellular matrix mineralization in vitro and faster osseointegration in vivo. Sci. Rep.; 2022; 12, 5264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09183-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35347219]
43. Corni, I.; Neumann, N.; Novak, S.; König, K.; Veronesi, P.; Chen, Q.; Ryan, M.P.; Boccaccini, A.R. Electrophoretic deposition of PEEK-nano alumina composite coatings on stainless steel. Surf. Coat. Technol.; 2008; 203, pp. 1349-1359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2008.11.005]
44. Dittrick, S.; Balla, V.K.; Davies, N.M.; Bose, S.; Bandyopadhyay, A. In vitro wear rate and Co ion release of compositionally and structurally graded CoCrMo-Ti6Al4V structures. Mater. Sci. Eng. C; 2010; 31, pp. 809-814. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2010.07.009] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21516206]
45. Kedia, S.; Das, A.; Patro, B.S.; Nilaya, J.P. Potential tribological and antibacterial benefits of pulsed laser-deposited zirconia thin film on Ti6Al4V bio-alloy. Appl. Phys. A; 2022; 128, 670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00339-022-05835-z]
46. Lawn, B.R. Ceramic-based layer structures for biomechanical applications. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci.; 2002; 6, pp. 229-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-0286(02)00016-5]
47. Yang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Yan, W.; Zheng, Y. Microstructure and wear properties of TiCN/Ti coatings on titanium alloy by laser cladding. Opt. Lasers Eng.; 2010; 48, pp. 119-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2009.08.003]
48. Cho, S.M.; Park, J.-W.; Han, H.-S.; Seok, H.-K.; Moon, M.-W.; Kim, Y.C. Multifunctional composite coating as a wear-resistant layer for the bearing in total hip joint replacement. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces; 2012; 5, pp. 395-403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/am302452f] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23249257]
49. Shao, M.; Wang, W.; Yang, H.; Zhang, X.; He, X. Preparation of wear-resistant coating on Ti6Al4V alloy by cold spraying and plasma electrolytic oxidation. Coatings; 2021; 11, 1288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings11111288]
50. Chen, J.; Ding, X.; Wang, J.; Xie, Z.; Wang, S. Corrosion behavior, metal ions release and wear resistance of TiN coating deposited on SLM CoCrMo alloy by magnetron sputtering. J. Alloys Compd.; 2024; 1002, 175318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2024.175318]
51. Oladokun, A.; Pettersson, M.; Bryant, M.; Engqvist, H.; Persson, C.; Hall, R.; Neville, A. Fretting of CoCrMo and Ti6Al4V alloys in modular prostheses. Tribol. Mater. Surfaces Interfaces; 2015; 9, pp. 165-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1751584X15Y.0000000014]
52. Ullah, S.; Hasan, M.; Ta, H.Q.; Zhao, L.; Shi, Q.; Fu, L.; Choi, J.; Yang, R.; Liu, Z.; Rümmeli, M.H. Synthesis of Doped Porous 3D Graphene Structures by Chemical Vapor Deposition and Its Applications. Adv. Funct. Mater.; 2019; 29, 1904457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201904457]
53. Joshi, P.; Haque, A.; Gupta, S.; Narayan, R.J.; Narayan, J. Narayan, Synthesis of multifunctional microdiamonds on stainless steel substrates by chemical vapor deposition. Carbon; 2020; 171, pp. 739-749. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2020.09.064]
54. An, N.; Wang, K.; Wei, H.; Song, Q.; Xiao, S. Fabricating high refractive index titanium dioxide film using electron beam evaporation for all-dielectric metasurfaces. MRS Commun.; 2016; 6, pp. 77-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1557/mrc.2016.13]
55. Geyao, L.; Yang, D.; Wanglin, C.; Chengyong, W. Development and application of physical vapor deposited coatings for medical devices: A review. Procedia CIRP; 2020; 89, pp. 250-262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.05.149]
56. Shahali, H.; Jaggessar, A.; Yarlagadda, P.K.D.V. Yarlagadda, Recent Advances in Manufacturing and Surface Modification of Titanium Orthopaedic Applications. Procedia Eng.; 2017; 174, pp. 1067-1076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.259]
57. Sun, L. Thermal Spray Coatings on Orthopedic Devices: When and How the FDA Reviews Your Coatings. J. Therm. Spray Technol.; 2018; 27, pp. 1280-1290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11666-018-0759-2]
58. Badshah, M.A.; Koh, N.Y.; Zia, A.W.; Abbas, N.; Zahra, Z.; Saleem, M.W. Recent developments in plasmonic nanostructures for metal enhanced fluorescence-based biosensing. Nanomaterials; 2020; 10, 1749. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano10091749] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32899375]
59. Chakraborty, R.; Seesala, V.S.; Manna, J.S.; Saha, P.; Dhara, S. Synthesis, characterization and cytocompatibility assessment of hydroxyapatite-polypyrrole composite coating synthesized through pulsed reverse electrochemical deposition. Mater. Sci. Eng. C; 2018; 94, pp. 597-607. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.10.001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30423745]
60. Wang, X.; Yan, L.; Ye, T.; Cheng, R.; Tian, J.; Ma, C.; Wang, Y.; Cui, W. Osteogenic and antiseptic nanocoating by in situ chitosan regulated electrochemical deposition for promoting osseointegration. Mater. Sci. Eng. C; 2019; 102, pp. 415-426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.04.060]
61. Li, T.-T.; Ling, L.; Lin, M.-C.; Peng, H.-K.; Ren, H.-T.; Lou, C.-W.; Lin, J.-H. Recent advances in multifunctional hydroxyapatite coating by electrochemical deposition. J. Mater. Sci.; 2020; 55, pp. 6352-6374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10853-020-04467-z]
62. Catauro, M.; Bollino, F.; Giovanardi, R.; Veronesi, P. Modification of Ti6Al4V implant surfaces by biocompatible TiO2/PCL hybrid layers prepared via sol-gel dip coating: Structural characterization, mechanical and corrosion behavior. Mater. Sci. Eng. C; 2017; 74, pp. 501-507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.12.046] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28254324]
63. Shunzhi, Y.; Zhonghai, L.; Liwei, H.; Yantao, Z.; Tao, F. Biocompatible MgO Film on Titanium Substrate Prepared by Sol-gel Method, Xiyou Jinshu Cailiao Yu Gongcheng/Rare. Met. Mater. Eng.; 2018; 47, pp. 2663-2667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1875-5372(18)30206-6]
64. Kaur, S.; Bala, N.; Khosla, C. Characterization of Hydroxyapatite Coating on 316L Stainless Steel by Sol–Gel Technique. Surf. Eng. Appl. Electrochem.; 2019; 55, pp. 357-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3103/S1068375519030104]
65. Jaafar, A.; Hecker, C.; Árki, P.; Joseph, Y. Sol-gel derived hydroxyapatite coatings for titanium implants: A review. Bioengineering; 2020; 7, 127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering7040127] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33066421]
66. Hoskins, W.T.; Bingham, R.J.; Lorimer, M.; de Steiger, R.N. The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems. J. Arthroplast.; 2020; 35, pp. 1074-1078. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.060] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31787355]
67. Atar, E.; Kayali, E.S.; Cimenoglu, H. Characteristics and wear performance of borided Ti6Al4V alloy. Surf. Coat. Technol.; 2008; 202, pp. 4583-4590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2008.03.011]
68. Posada, O.M.; Tate, R.J.; Grant, M.H. Effects of CoCr metal wear debris generated from metal-on-metal hip implants and Co ions on human monocyte-like U937 cells. Toxicol. In Vitro; 2015; 29, pp. 271-280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2014.11.006] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25433333]
69. Abed, A.K.; Mustafa, A.M.; Resen, A.M. Assessment Corrosion and Bioactive Behavior of Bioglass Coating on Co-Cr-Mo Alloy By Electrophoretic Deposition For Biomedical Applications, Corros. Sci. Technol.; 2024; 23, pp. 179-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14773/cst.2024.23.3.179]
70. Tsai, C.E.; Hung, J.; Hu, Y.; Wang, D.Y.; Pilliar, R.M.; Wang, R. Improving fretting corrosion resistance of CoCrMo alloy with TiSiN and ZrN coatings for orthopedic applications. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.; 2021; 114, 104233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104233]
71. Raimondi, M.T.; Pietrabissa, R. The in-vivo wear performance of prosthetic femoral heads with titanium nitride coating. Biomaterials; 2000; 21, pp. 907-913. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00246-X] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10735467]
72. Su, Y.; Yao, S.; Leu, Z.; Wei, C.; Wu, C. Comparison of tribological behavior of three films-TiN, TiCN and CrN-Grown by physical vapor deposition. Wear; 1997; 213, pp. 165-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1648(97)00182-8]
73. Harman, M.K.; Banks, S.A.; Hodge, W. Wear analysis of a retrieved hip implant with titanium nitride coating. J. Arthroplast.; 1997; 12, pp. 938-945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(97)90164-9]
74. Cozza, R.C. A study on friction coefficient and wear coefficient of coated systems submitted to micro-scale abrasion tests. Surf. Coat. Technol.; 2013; 215, pp. 224-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.06.088]
75. AbuAlia, M.; Fullam, S.; Cinotti, F.; Manninen, N.; Wimmer, M.A. Titanium Nitride Coatings on CoCrMo and Ti6Al4V Alloys: Effects on Wear and Ion Release. Lubricants; 2024; 12, 96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/lubricants12030096]
76. Uribe, J.; Geringer, J.; Gremillard, L.; Reynard, B. Degradation of alumina and zirconia toughened alumina (ZTA) hip prostheses tested under microseparation conditions in a shock device. Tribol. Int.; 2013; 63, pp. 151-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2012.10.002]
77. Khatkar, H.; Hothi, H.; de Villiers, D.; Lausmann, C.; Kendoff, D.; Gehrke, T.; Skinner, J.; Hart, A. Retrieval analysis of ceramic-coated metal-on-polyethylene total hip replacements. Int. Orthop.; 2016; 41, pp. 1101-1105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3314-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27783104]
78. Atar, E. Sliding wear performances of 316 L, Ti6Al4V, and CoCrMo alloys. Kov. Mater. Met. Mater.; 2013; 51, pp. 183-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4149/km_2013_3_183]
79. Stewart, C.; Eberhardt, A. Wear Testing of Zirconia Coatings for Applications in Total Hip Replacement. Inq. UAB Undergrad. Sci. Res. J.; 2008; 29, pp. 2-7.
80. Huang, L.-Y.; Xu, K.-W.; Lu, J.; Guelorget, B.; Chen, H. Nano-scratch and fretting wear study of DLC coatings for biomedical application. Diam. Relat. Mater.; 2001; 10, pp. 1448-1456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-9635(00)00501-X]
81. Koseki, H.; Shindo, H.; Baba, K.; Fujikawa, T.; Sakai, N.; Sawae, Y.; Murakami, T. Surface-engineered metal-on-metal bearings improve the friction and wear properties of local area contact in total joint arthroplasty. Surf. Coat. Technol.; 2008; 202, pp. 4775-4779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2008.04.060]
82. Yang, S.; Camino, D.; Jones, A.; Teer, D. Deposition and tribological behaviour of sputtered carbon hard coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol.; 2000; 124, pp. 110-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0257-8972(99)00634-9]
83. Lee, J.-M.; Lee, C.-W. Comparison of Hydroxyapatite-Coated and Non-Hydroxyapatite-Coated Noncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty in Same Patients. J. Arthroplast.; 2007; 22, pp. 1019-1023. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.04.029] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17920475]
84. Balagna, C.; Faga, M.; Spriano, S. Tantalum-based multilayer coating on cobalt alloys in total hip and knee replacement. Mater. Sci. Eng. C; 2012; 32, pp. 887-895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2012.02.007]
85. Dong, C.; Li, R.; Wang, J.; Zhou, T.; Pan, J.; Xu, J.; Wen, M.; Qin, Y.; Zhang, K. Topographical hard protective coating for joint replacement implants. J. Mater. Res. Technol.; 2024; 33, pp. 861-873. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.09.139]
86. Kashyap, V.; Ramkumar, P. DLC coating over pre-oxidized and textured Ti6Al4V for superior adhesion and tribo-performance of hip implant. Surf. Coat. Technol.; 2022; 440, 128492. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.128492]
87. Rajak, D.K.; Kumar, A.; Behera, A.; Menezes, P.L. Diamond-Like Carbon (DLC) Coatings: Classification, Properties, and Applications. Appl. Sci.; 2021; 11, 4445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11104445]
88. Rahman, H.S.A.; Choudhury, D.; Abu Osman, N.A.; Shasmin, H.N.; Abas, W.A.B.W. Abas, In vivo and in vitro outcomes of alumina, zirconia and their composited ceramic-on-ceramic hip joints. J. Ceram. Soc. Jpn.; 2013; 121, pp. 382-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2109/jcersj2.121.382]
89. Wang, F.; Sun, J.; Xu, T. Oxide Ceramic Coatings on Orthopaedic Implants: A Review of TiO2 and Al2O3. Ceram. Silikáty; 2023; 67, pp. 525-542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13168/cs.2023.0052]
90. Choudhury, D.; Walker, R.; Shirvani, A.; Mootanah, R. The influence of honed surfaces on metal-on-metal hip joints. Tribol. Online; 2013; 8, pp. 195-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2474/trol.8.195]
91. Choudhury, D.; Vrbka, M.; Bin Mamat, A.; Stavness, I.; Roy, C.K.; Mootanah, R.; Krupka, I. The impact of surface and geometry on coefficient of friction of artificial hip joints. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.; 2017; 72, pp. 192-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.05.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28500998]
92. Revankar, G.D.; Shetty, R.; Rao, S.S.; Gaitonde, V.N. Wear resistance enhancement of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) by ball burnishing process. J. Mater. Res. Technol.; 2017; 6, pp. 13-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2016.03.007]
93. Skvortsova, S.; Orlov, A.; Valyano, G.; Spektor, V.; Mamontova, N. Wear resistance of Ti–6Al–4V alloy ball heads for use in implants. J. Funct. Biomater.; 2021; 12, 65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jfb12040065]
94. Matsoukas, G.; Willing, R.; Kim, I.Y. Total hip wear assessment: A comparison between computational and in vitro wear assessment techniques using ISO 14242 loading and kinematics. J. Biomech. Eng.; 2009; 131, 041011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3049477] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19275440]
95. Ceddia, M.; Solarino, G.; Giannini, G.; De Giosa, G.; Tucci, M.; Trentadue, B. A Finite Element Analysis Study of Influence of Femoral Stem Material in Stress Shielding in a Model of Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty: Ti-6Al-4V versus Carbon Fibre-Reinforced PEEK Composite. J. Compos. Sci.; 2024; 8, 254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcs8070254]
96. Hussain, M.; Rizvi, S.H.A.; Abbas, N.; Sajjad, U.; Shad, M.R.; Badshah, M.A.; Malik, A.I. Recent developments in coatings for orthopedic metallic implants. Coatings; 2021; 11, 791. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings11070791]
97. Bordbar-Khiabani, A.; Kovrlija, I.; Locs, J.; Loca, D.; Gasik, M. Octacalcium Phosphate-Laden Hydrogels on 3D-Printed Titanium Biomaterials Improve Corrosion Resistance in Simulated Biological Media. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2023; 24, 13135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms241713135]
98. Barakat, A.; Quayle, J.; Stott, P.; Gibbs, J.; Edmondson, M. Results of hydroxyapatite ceramic coated primary femoral stem in revision total hip replacement. Int. Orthop.; 2020; 44, pp. 1655-1660. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04579-w]
99. Viamont-Guerra, M.-R.; Ramos-Pascual, S.; Saffarini, M.; Sales, J.; Laude, F. Effect of femoral stem surface coating on clinical and radiographic outcomes of cementless primary total hip arthroplasty: A patient-matched retrospective study. Int. Orthop.; 2022; 47, pp. 165-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05629-1]
100. Fallahnezhad, K.; Feyzi, M.; Hashemi, R.; Taylor, M. The Role of the Assembly Force in the Tribocorrosion Behaviour of Hip Implant Head-Neck Junctions: An Adaptive Finite Element Approach. Bioengineering; 2022; 9, 629. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9110629]
101. Darwich, A.; Nazha, H.; Daoud, M. Effect of coating materials on the fatigue behavior of hip implants: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J. Appl. Comput. Mech.; 2020; 6, pp. 284-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22055/jacm.2019.30017.1659]
102. Heimann, R.B. Plasma-Sprayed Osseoconductive Hydroxylapatite Coatings for Endoprosthetic Hip Implants: Phase Composition, Microstructure, Properties, and Biomedical Functions. Coatings; 2024; 14, 787. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings14070787]
103. Li, M.; Li, D.; Jiang, Y.; He, P.; Li, Y.; Wu, Y.; Lei, W.; de Bruijn, J.D.; Cannon, R.D.; Mei, L. et al. The genetic background determines material-induced bone formation through the macrophage-osteoclast axis. Biomaterials; 2023; 302, 122356. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122356] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37898023]
104. Al-Hawary, S.I.S.; Habash, R.T.; Abosaooda, M.; Hjazi, A.; Saleh, E.A.M.; Hassan, Z.F.; Bathaei, M.S. TiO2/PEG as smart anticorrosion and drug-eluting platforms in inflammatory conditions. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e25605. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25605] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38370200]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Satish, Shenoy B 1 ; Chethan, K N 1
; Keni, Laxmikant G 1
; Shetty, Sawan 2
; Shyamasunder, Bhat N 3
1 Department of Aeronautical & Automobile Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Orthopedics, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India