|
| Material/Design |
Biomechanical Advantages |
Limitations |
References |
|
|
| CoCrMo |
High strength, superior wear and fatigue resistance |
High elastic modulus, stress shielding |
[1,2,5,18] |
|
| Titanium Alloys |
Low modulus, high biocompatibility, osseointegration |
Less wear resistance than CoCrMo |
[6,7,15,16] |
|
| PEEK |
Bone-like modulus, radiolucency, reduces stress shielding |
Limited clinical long-term data |
[9,10] |
|
| PCD Coatings |
Optimal stress distribution, high hardness, low friction |
High manufacturing cost |
[10,32] |
|
| CoC Bearings |
Low wear, inert, ideal for young/active patients |
Potential for squeaking, higher cost |
[11,12,19,20] |
|
| CoP Bearings |
Lower wear than MoP, improved patient-reported outcomes |
Still releases some particles |
[19,24] |
|
| Dual Mobility |
Enhanced ROM, prevents dislocations, good long-term survival |
Increased acetabular volume required |
[13,14,19,24] |
|
| Lattice Structures |
Better load distribution, promotes osseointegration |
Requires advanced manufacturing processes |
[17,28,30] |
|
| Additive Manufacturing |
High customization, precise anatomical matching |
Cost, technical complexity |
[20,30,31] |
|
| Patient-specific Implants |
Improved fit, reduced impingement and revision risk |
Requires imaging and custom planning |
[21,30] |
|
|
