February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Biomaterials

There are different definitions of bioengineering [Berger et al., 1996].

Here, we refer bioengineering to the application of concepts and meth-
ods of the physical sciences and mathematics in an engineering approach
towards solving problems in repair and reconstructions of lost, damaged or
deceased tissues. Any material that is used for this purpose can be regarded
as a biomaterial. According to Williams [1987], a biomaterial is a material
used in implants or medical device, intended to interact with biological
systems. Thus, a biomaterial must always be considered in its final fab-
ricated and sterilized form. Examples of common medical devices are:
substitute heart valves and artificial hearts, artificial hip and knee joints,
dental implants, internal as well as external fracture fixators, skin repair
templates as well as dialysers to support kidney functions or intraocular
lenses. A material that can be used for medical application must possess a
lot of specific characteristics, of which the most fundamental requirements
are related with biocompatibility.
Over the last thirty years, considerable progress has been made in
understanding the interactions between the tissues and the materials. It has
been acknowledged that there are profound differences between non-living
(avital) and living (vital) materials. Researchers have coined the words bio-
material and biocompatibility [Williams, 1988] to indicate the biological

1
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

2 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOCOMPOSITES

performance of materials. Thus, materials that are biocompatible can be

considered as biomaterials, and the biocompatibility is a descriptive term
which indicates the ability of a material to perform with an appropriate host
response, in a specific application [Black and Hastings, 1998]. Researchers
[Wintermantel and Mayer, 1995] extended this definition and distinguished
between surface and structural compatibility of an implant. Surface com-
patibility means the chemical, biological, and physical (including surface
morphology) suitability of an implant surface to the host tissues. Structural
compatibility is the optimal adaptation to the mechanical behavior of the
host tissues. Therefore, structural compatibility refers to the mechanical
properties of the implant material, such as elastic modulus (or E, Youngs
modulus) and deformation characteristics, and optimal load transmission
(minimum interfacial strain mismatch) at the implant/tissue interface. Opti-
mal interaction between biomaterial and host tissue is reached when both
the surface and the structural compatibilities are met. Furthermore, it should
be noted that the success of a biomaterial in the body also depends on many
other factors such as surgical technique (degree of trauma imposed during
implantation, sterilization methods, etc), health condition and activities of
the patient. Table 1.1 summarizes several important factors that can be con-
sidered in selecting a material for a biomedical application [Ramakrishna
et al., 2001].
Until recently, most medical devices are still made from single-
phase homogeneous and isotropic materials such as polymers, metals, and
ceramics. A large number of polymers are widely used in various medical
applications. This is mainly because they are available in a wide variety of
compositions, properties, and forms (solids, fibers, fabrics, films, and gels),
and can be fabricated readily into complex shapes and structures. However
for load bearing applications, they tend to be too flexible and too weak
to meet the mechanical demands of certain applications e.g. as implants in
orthopedic surgery. Also they may absorb liquids and swell, and leach unde-
sirable products (e.g. monomers, fillers, plasticizers, antioxidants), depend-
ing on the application and usage. Moreover, the sterilization processes
(autoclave, ethylene oxide, and 60 Co irradiation) may affect the polymer
properties. Metals are known for high strength, ductility, and resistance
to wear. Most common are stainless steel, cobalt-chromium alloys as well
as titanium and titanium base alloys. Major disadvantages of those metals
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Introduction 3

Table 1.1 Various factors of importance in material selection for biomedical applications
[Ramakrishna et al., 2001].

Factors Description
Chemical/Biological Physical Mechanical/Structural
Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics
1st Level Material chemical density elastic modulus
Properties composition shear modulus
(bulk and surface) Poissons ratio
yield strength
tensile strength
compressive
strength
2nd Level Material adhesion surface hardness
Properties topology flexural modulus
texture flexural strength
roughness
Specific Functional biofunctionality form & stiffness or
Requirements bioinert geometry rigidity
(based on bioactive coefficient of fracture toughness
application) biostability thermal fatigue strength
biodegradation expansion creep resistance
behavior electrical friction and wear
conductivity resistance
color, adhesion strength
aesthetics impact strength
refractive proof stress
index abrasion
opacity or resistance
translucency
Processing & reproducibility, quality, sterilizability, packaging, secondary
Fabrication processability
Characteristics of host: tissue, organ, species, age, sex, race, health condition, activity,
systemic response
Medical/surgical procedure, period of application/usage
Cost

are their high stiffness compared to host tissues as well as their tendency to
create severe imaging artifacts in the most advanced diagnostic 3-D imaging
procedures i.e. X-ray Computer Tomography (CT) and nuclear Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (MRI). Stainless steel and cobalt-chromium alloys are
sensitive to corrosion, thus releasing metal ions which may cause allergic
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

4 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOCOMPOSITES

tissue reactions (Nickel and Chromium allergies) [Speidel and Uggowitzer,

1998]. Titanium and its alloys, however, expand their range of applications
because of their excellent biocompatibility. Ceramics are known for their
good biocompatibility, corrosion resistance, and high compression resis-
tance. Drawbacks of ceramics include brittleness, low fracture strength,
difficulty in fabrication, low mechanical reliability and lack of resilience.
These drawbacks in the traditional biomaterials have stimulated researchers
and engineers to develop composite materials as an alternative choice in
bioengineering applications.

1.2 Potential of Biocomposites for Medical Applications

Composites are those materials that contain two or more distinct constituent
phases, on a scale larger than the atomic. The term biocomposites spe-
cially refers to those composites that can be employed in bioengineering.
The constituents retain their identities in the composite. Namely, they do not
dissolve or otherwise merge completely into each other although they act
in concert. Normally, the constituent components can be physically identi-
fied and exhibit an interface between one another. In composites, properties
such as the elastic modulus can be significantly different from those of the
constituents alone but are considerably altered by the constituent structures
and contents. From a structural point of view, composites are anisotropic
in nature. Their mechanical properties are different in different directions.
Most of the living tissues such as bone, dentin, collagen, cartilage, and skin
are essentially composites. Those natural biocomposites are not discussed in
this book, but the reader can refer to, e.g. [D. Taylor, 2003]. Synthetic com-
posites are essentially a combination of two constituent phases, i.e. a rein-
forcing phase such as fiber or particle and a continuous phase called matrix.
The primary motive in the development of biocomposites is that by vary-
ing the type and distribution of the reinforcing phases in the composites it is
possible to obtain a wide range of mechanical and biological properties, and
hence to optimize the structure and performance of the biomedical devices
and their interaction with the surrounding tissues. A schematic diagram
to show potential use of biocomposites in the repair, reconstruction, and
replacement of human hard tissues is given in Fig. 1.1. A number of polymer
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Introduction 5

Dental Implant Dental Post

CF/C, SiC CF/C,CF/Epoxy Bone Replacement Material
GF/Polyester
HA/PHB, HA/PEG-PHB
Arch Wire & Brackets Dental Bridges CF/PTFE, PET/PU, HA/HDPE
GF/PC, GF/PP UHMWPE/PMMA PET/PU, HA/PE, Bio-Glass/PE,
GF/Nylon, GF/PMMA CF/PMMA, GF/PMMA Bio-Glass/PHB, Bio-Glass/PS, HA/PLA
Dental Restorative Material KF/PMMA
Silica/BIS-GMA
HA/2.2 (4-methacryloxydiethoxyphenyl)

Spine Cage, Plate, Rods, Screws

and Disc
CF/PEEK, CF/Epoxy, CF/PS,
Vascular Graft Bio-Glass/PU, Bio-Glass/PS,
Cells/PTFE, Cells/PET PET/SR, PET/Hydrogel
PET/Collagen, PET/Gelatin
PU/PU-PELA

Abdominal Wall Prosthesis

PET/PU, PET/Collagen Finger Joint
PET/SR, CF/UHMWPE

Total Hip Replacement

Intramedullary Nails CF/Epoxy, CF/C, CF/PS,
CF/LCP, CF/PEEK CF/PEEK, CF/PTFE,
GF/PEEK CF/UHMWPE, CF/PE,
UHMWPE/UHMWPE

Tendon / Ligament Bone Cement

PET/PHEMA, KF/PMA, KF/PE Bone particles/PMMA,
CF/PTFE, CF/PLLA, GF/PU Titanium/PMMA, UHMWPE/PMMA,
GF/PMMA, CF/PMMA, KF/PMMA,
PMMA/PMMA, Bio-Glass/Bis-GMA

Cartilage Replacement
PET/PU, PTFE/PU, CF/PTFE
CF/C
Total Knee Replacement
CF/UHMWPE, UHMWPE/
Boneplates & Screws UHMWPE
CF/PEEK, CF/Epoxy,
CF/PMMA
CF/PP, CF/PS, CF/PLLA,
CF/PLA, KF/PC, HA/PE,
PLLA/PLDLA, PGA/PGA
External Fixation
CF/Epoxy

CF: Carbon fibers, C: Carbon, GF: Glass fibers, KF: Kevlar fibers, PMMA: Polymethymethacrylate,
PS: Polysulfone, PP: Polypropylene, UHMWPE: Ultra-high-molecular weight polyethylene,
PLDLA: Poly(L-DL-lactide), PLLA: Poly (L-lactic acid), PGA: Polyglycolic acid, PC: Polycarbonate,
PEEK: Polyetheretheketone; HA: Hydroxyapatite, PMA: Polymethylacrylate,
BIS-GMA: bis-phenol A glycidyl methacrylate, PU: Polyurethane, PTFE: polytetrafluoroethylene,
PET: polyethyleneterephthalate, PEA: poltethylacrylate, SR: silicone rubber,
PELA: Block co-polymer of lactic acid and polyethylene glycol, LCP: liquid crystalline polymer,
PHB: Polyhydroxybutyrate, PEG: polyethyleneglycol,
PHEMA: poly(20hydroxyethyl methacrylate)

Fig. 1.1 Various applications of different polymer composite biomaterials.

February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

6 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOCOMPOSITES

matrix composite materials were investigated for medical applications

over the years. The early composites have been successfully used clinically,
e.g. cages for spinal fusion, while the others are still under development.
There are a number of factors that led to the development of composite mate-
rials. Some specific advantages of polymer composites are highlighted in
the following.
In general, tissues are grouped into hard and soft tissues. Bone and tooth
are the only examples of hard tissues, whereas skin, blood vessels, cartilage
and ligaments are a few examples of soft tissues.As the names suggested, the
hard tissues are generally stiffer (with higher elastic modulus) and stronger
(with higher tensile strength) than the soft tissues (Tables 1.2 and 1.3).
Moreover they are essentially composite materials with anisotropic prop-
erties, which depend on the roles and structural arrangements of various
components (e.g. collagen, elastin, and hydroxyapatite) of the tissues. For

Table 1.2 Mechanical properties of hard tissues, representative values only, note that
tissues show broad variation [Black and Hastings, 1998].

Hard Tissue Modulus (GPa) Tensile Strength (MPa)

Cortical Bone (Longitudinal Direction) 17.7 133
Cortical Bone (Transverse Direction) 12.8 52
Cancellous Bone 0.4 7.4
Enamel 84.3 10
Dentine 11.0 39.3

Table 1.3 Mechanical properties of soft tissues, representative values only, note that tissues
show broad variation [Black and Hastings, 1998].

Soft Tissue Modulus (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa)

Articular Cartilage 10.5 27.5
Fibrocartilage 159.1 10.4
Ligament 303.0 29.5
Tendon 401.5 46.5
Skin 0.10.2 7.6
Arterial Tissue (Longitudinal Direction) 0.1
Arterial Tissue (Transverse Direction) 1.1
Intraocular Lens 5.6 2.3
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Introduction 7

example, the longitudinal mechanical properties of cortical bone are higher

than the transverse direction properties (see Table 1.2). The anisotropy of
the elastic properties of the biological tissues has to be considered as one an
essential design criterion for implants made from composite biomaterials.
From the mechanical point of view, metals or ceramics seem to be more
suitable for hard tissue applications (Tables 1.2 and 1.4), while polymers
for soft tissue applications (Tables 1.3 and 1.5). However, a closer look at
Tables 1.2 and 1.4 reveals that the elastic moduli of metals and ceramics are
at least 10 to 20 times higher than those of the hard tissues. Thus, implants
made from these materials tend to be much stiffer than the tissue to which

Table 1.4 Mechanical properties of typical metallic and ceramic

biomaterials, representative values only [Black and Hastings, 1998].

Material Modulus (GPa) Tensile Strength (MPa)

Metal Alloys
Stainless Steel 190 586
Co-Cr alloy 280 1085
Ti-alloy 116 965
Amalgam 30 58
Ceramics
Alumina 380 300
Zirconia 220 820
Bioglass 35 42
Hydroxyapatite 95 50

Table 1.5 Mechanical properties of typical polymeric biomaterials, representative

values only [Black and Hastings, 1998].

Material Modulus (GPa) Tensile Strength (MPa)

Polyethylene (PE) 0.88 35
Polyurethane (PU) 0.02 35
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) 0.5 27.5
Polyacetal (PA) 2.1 67
Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) 2.55 59
Polyethylene terepthalate (PET) 2.85 61
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) 3.3 110
Silicone Rubber (SR) 0.008 7.6
Polysulfone (PS) 2.65 75
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

8 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOCOMPOSITES

they are attached. In orthopedic surgery, this mismatch of stiffness between

the bone and the metallic or ceramic implants influences the load sharing
between the bone and implant. Since the amount of stress carried by each
of them is directly related to their stiffness, bone is insufficiently loaded
compared to the implant. According to Wolffs law of stress related bone
remodeling [Hayes and Snyder, 1981], this may lead to lower bone density
and altered bone architecture. In osteosynthesis, this may affect healing of
the fractured bones and may increase the risk of refracture of the bone after
removal of the osteosynthesis implant, e.g. bone plate.
It has been recognized that by matching the stiffness of implant with
that of the host tissues can reduce such negative effects and support desired
bone tissue remodeling. In this respect, the use of low-modulus materi-
als such as polymers appears interesting. However, low strength associated
with low modulus usually impairs their potential use. Since fiber-reinforced
polymers i.e. polymer composite materials offer both low elastic modulus
and high strength, they have been proposed for several orthopedic appli-
cations. A further merit of composite materials is that by controlling the
volume fractions and local and global arrangement of reinforcement phase,
the properties and design of an implant can be varied and tailored to suit the
mechanical and physiological conditions of the host tissues. It is therefore
suggested that composite materials offer a greater potential of structural
biocompatibility than the homogenous monolithic materials.
Composite materials offer several other significant advantages over
metal alloys and ceramics, e.g. absence of corrosion and release of aller-
genic metal ions such as Nickel or Chromium, high fracture toughness
and higher resistance against fatigue failure [Hastings, 1983; Tayton, 1983;
Tayton and Bradley, 1983]. Polymer composite are basically radiolucent
materials, however, their radio transparency can be adjusted by adding con-
trast medium to the polymer. Moreover the polymer composite materials are
highly compatible with the modern diagnostic methods such as computed
tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as they show
very low X-ray scattering and their magnetic susceptibility is very close to
that of human tissue. Considering their light weight and superior mechan-
ical properties, the polymer composites are also used as structural compo-
nents of these imaging devices. For some applications as in dental implants,
polymer composites can offer better aesthetic characteristic. Furthermore,
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Introduction 9

since implants from polymer composites can be manufactured using high

throughput technologies e.g. injection molding, net shape pressing and high
speed machining, they become competitive to metal implants from the point
of view of cost management too.

1.3 Classification of Composite Materials

There are several means which can be used to classify composites in

applications. Figure 1.2 shows main types of bio-composites according
to their reinforcement forms. From Fig. 1.2, we can see that there are typ-
ically three kinds of reinforcements, i.e. short fibers, continuous fibers,
and particulates (powders). All of them have been used in the develop-
ment of composites for bio-medical applications, such as screws and total
hip replacement stems made from short fiber reinforcements (Figs. 1.3
[Tognini, Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zurich, 2001] and 1.4 [Semadeni, Ph.D.
Thesis, ETH Zurich, 1999]), orthopedic bone plates fabricated using unidi-
rectional (UD) laminae or multidirectional tape laminates (Fig. 1.5) [Evans
and Gregson, 1998], and powder reinforced dental composites [Nicholson,
1998; Moszner and Salz, 2001]. Another classification for biocomposites

Biocomposites

Short (chopped) fiber composites, Continuous Particulate

whisker reinforced composites, fiber composites, Powder
blade reinforced composites composites composites

2D composites 3D composites

UD laminae, tape UD rods, Knitted composites,

laminates Braided composites, Woven
composites, Stitched
composites, Non-woven
composites

Fig. 1.2 Classification of biocomposites based on their reinforcement form.

February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

10 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOCOMPOSITES

A
B
C

E
F

Fig. 1.3 Endless carbon fiber reinforced PEEK matrix medical screws made by Composite
Flow Molding, carbon fiber volume content 62% (by courtesy of Icotec AG, Switzerland)
[R. Tognini, Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zurich, 2001].

Fig. 1.4 Hip endoprosthesis stem, injection molded, chopped long fiber reinforced PEEK,
fiber volume content 50% [M. Semadeni, Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zurich, 1999].

is based on their biodegradability, i.e. fully resorbable, partially resorbable,

and nonresorbable composites, as shown in Fig. 1.6.
Resorbable biocomposites are made from those fibers and matrices
both of which are fully absorbable in the body. Those biocomposites are
currently and intensively investigated for internal fracture fixation appli-
cations. When a metal fixator is used, a second operation generally has to
be performed to remove the implants when the fractured bone has healed
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Introduction 11

Fig. 1.5 Carbon fiber reinforced epoxy composite bone plates (Evans and Gregson, Bio-
materials, Vol. 19, No. 15, pp. 13291342, 1998).

completely. This would cause the patient additional risk, pain and expen-
diture. Such an operation can be avoided if a fully resorbable fixator is
used. Most work in the literature on fully resorbable biocomposite fracture
fixators has been done based on the group of PLA (polylactic acid) poly-
mers. The reason is that PLAs possess two major characteristics that make
them an extremely attractive bioabsorbable material [Alexander, 1996]:
(1) they can degrade inside the body in a rate that can be controlled, e.g. by
varying molecular weight, the share of their enantiomers L and D-lactide
or copolymerising it with PGA (polyglycolic acid) polymer, and (2) and, if
crystallization of the PLA-polymer is prevented, their degradation products
are nontoxic, biocompatible, and easily metabolized. The main problem of
those composites is the coordination of the degradation behavior of both
phases and, especially, of the interphase between both.
Partially resorbable biocomposites have been fabricated using
non-absorbable reinforcing materials and absorbable matrix materials.
Historically, they have been the predecessors of the fully degradable com-
posites. However, due to severe inflammatory tissue reactions on the remain-
ing, non-degradable phase, most of the research on these materials has
been stopped. They have been investigated for a number of medical appli-
cations such as bone replacements, bone cements and also internal frac-
ture fixators. Particulate reinforced materials which have been practiced
include PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) and PBT (poly(butylene tereph-
thalate)) as non-resorbable matrics in combination with HA or PLAs,
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

12 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOCOMPOSITES

Polymer Composite Biomaterials

Non-resorbable Composites Partially Resorbable Fully Resorbable

Composites Composites
Alumina/PMMA
Bioglass/PS CF/PGA PGA/PGA
Bioglass/PU CF/PLA PLA-PGA/PLA
Bone/PMMA CF/PLLA PLLA/PLDLLA
CF/C HA/Alginate
CF/Epoxy (Triacine Resin) HA/PBT
CF/Nylon HA/PEG-PHB
CF/PBT HA/PLA
CF/PEEK PET/Collagen
CF/PMMA PET/PHEMA
CF/PP PU/PU-PELA
CF/PS Alumina/PLLA
CF/PTFE
CF/UHMWPE
GF/bis-GMA
GF/PMMA
GF/PP
GF/PU
HA/HDPE
HA/UHMWPE
KF/PC
KF/PMA
PE/PMMA
PET/PU
PMMA/PMMA
PTFE/PU
Silica/bis-GMA
Silica/SR
UHMWPE/bis-GMA
UHMWPE/UHMWPE

Fig. 1.6 Classification of man-made polymer biocomposites based on biodegradability.

and Polyalkanoates e.g. PHB (polyhydroxybutyrate), combined with non-

resorbable filler phases e.g. Alumina or Calcium Carbonate. For inter-
nal fixator application, the reinforcing material has been mainly carbon
fibers whereas the matrices used have been various PLAs or PLA-PGA
copolymers. The only product that raised clinical interest is a composite
of polyethylene and HA being applied in some bone graft and replace-
ment applications. In a nonresorbable biocomposite, both the reinforcing
phase (fibers or particulate) and the continuous phase are nonresorbable
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Introduction 13

in the body. There is a large variety of biocomposites which are nonre-

sorbable. They are generally used to provide specific mechanical or clin-
ical properties unattainable with the traditional biomaterials. Currently,
the most advanced use of nonresorbable composites is in implants for
spinal fusion since they provide superior mechanical stability and allow
proper imaging of the reconstructed or stabilized vertebral column. The
other potential uses include stems of hip or knee joint prostheses, pros-
thetic sockets, bone plates, dental posts, external fixators, orthodontic arch-
wires, orthodontic brackets, etc which will be described in Chapter 7 of
this book.

1.4 Scope of this Book

This book focuses on polymer composites applied to bioengineering, a

topic which has not been systematically addressed in a whole monograph
before. There are three purposes for the authors to write the present book.
First, a comprehensive survey of biocomposites from the existing literature
in various medical applications, primarily focusing on hard tissues related
implants, is presented. Second, mechanical (stiffness and strength) designs
of various fibrous polymer matrix composites are described only based on
their constituent properties. These composites can be tailored to different
biomedical applications. For this purpose, a mechanics of composite theory
is presented systematically. Finally, a number of typical design and devel-
opment examples involved with biocomposites are shown in the book.
Although polymer composites have been recognized as potential can-
didates for medical devices, implants and substitutes, the majority of them
are still limited to laboratory investigation level at the present. A great
body of studies has accumulated concerning various biomedical applica-
tions ranging from the hard tissues to the soft tissues. These study reports
have been broadly distributed in many sources of literature publications.
There is a need to review and evaluate the contents of these studies so that the
non-specialist reader can appreciate the current understanding of polymer
biocomposites and that he or she can be stimulated for future investigations
in biocomposite science and engineering. Thus, an effort has been made in
this book to summarize and survey the various biomedical applications of
polymer composites so far achieved.
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

14 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOCOMPOSITES

While a number of issues affect the widespread employment of polymer

composites in bioengineering, the technical need for the design and analy-
sis of composite materials and structures remains in place, as an increased
use of biocomposites also requires taking full advantages of the material
properties together with manufacturing techniques available. For a syn-
thetic composite especially made from continuous or discontinuous fiber
reinforcement, its mechanical as well as physiological properties are depen-
dent on a number of variables. The parameters that will influence the com-
posite properties include the mechanical and physiological properties of
its constituent materials, constituent contents, reinforcement form, struc-
ture, and arrangement pattern in the matrix, interface bonding between the
reinforcement and the matrix phases, and so on. Varying these parame-
ters can result in composites with different performances. Thus, a design
related problem is to achieve a polymer composite with optimal mechani-
cal as well as physiological performance by choosing suitable values of the
design parameters. This is possible only when the composite properties can
be quantitatively represented as the functions of those design variables. The
micromechanics theory can be applied to accurately estimate the composite
properties in terms of its constituent properties and geometrical parameters.
In this book, micromechanics models of the stiffness and strength are
presented. Composite elastic behavior, its inelastic and strength properties
can be estimated by rigorous application of micromechanics. The detailed
development of the model is not shown in the book, but can be found in
cited literature [Huang, 2000]. Attention has been focused on its wide appli-
cability. The analysis and designing procedures for various fiber compos-
ites including unidirectional lamina, multidirectional tape laminate, woven,
braided, and knitted fabric reinforced composites are described in the book.
The strength characteristics of any continuous fiber reinforced composite
can be simulated, as long as the fiber orientation in the composite can be
identified. Prediction of the mechanical properties of a fibrous composite
primarily involves an analysis of the geometry of the fibrous structure in the
composite. Once an accurate knowledge has been obtained of the relation-
ship between the mechanical characteristics of the composite and the mate-
rial properties and geometrical structure of its constituents, stiffness and
strength designs can be performed. This has been done in the book for com-
posites reinforced with a number of typical fiber preforms and structures.
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Introduction 15

The third major issue addressed in the book is the design and devel-
opment examples of several medical devices and implants using polymer
composites. These devices are supposed to be used for hard tissue appli-
cations, including Prosthetic socket, Dental post, External fixator, Bone
plate, Orthodontic archwire, Orthodontic bracket, Total hip replacement,
and Composite screws and pins. Fabrication and mechanical testing of
them have been shown, with comparisons with other clinically used med-
ical devices if possible. Among them, some devices such as bone plate
and archwire are primary load carrying elements. Their ultimate strength
behavior must be targeted during the design. It is noted that both of them are
mainly subjected to lateral loading (bending) in their clinical application.
According to current understanding, the estimation of composite bending
strength remains a challenge. In this book, design procedures for those med-
ical devices using continuous fiber reinforced polymer matrix composites
are described in sufficient detail. We believe that comparable procedures
can be followed if other critical designs are to be made.

References

K. P. Baiday, S. Ramakrishna, and M. Rahman, Quantitative radiographic analysis

of fiber reinforced polymer composites, Journal of Biomaterials Applications,
2001, 15(3), 279289.
S. A. Berger, W. Goldsmith, and E. R. Lewis, eds., Introduction to Bioengineering,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.
J. Black and G. W. Hastings, Handbook of Biomaterials Properties, Chapman and
Hall, London, UK, 1998.
S. L. Evans and P. J. Gregson, Composite technology in load-bearing orthopaedic
implants, Biomaterials, 1998, 19, 13291342.
G. W. Hastings, Biomedical applications of CFRPs, in Carbon Fiber and their
Composites, ed. E. Fitzer, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983, pp. 261271.
W. C. Hayes and B. Snyder, Towards a quantitative formulation of Wolffs law
in trabecular bone, in Mechanical Properties of Bone, ed. S. C. Cowin, The
Joint ASME-ASCE Applied Mechanics, Fluids Engineering and Bioengineering
Conference, AMD-Vol. 45, Boulder, Colorado, 1981.
G. O. Hofmann, Biodegradable implants in orthopaedic surgery A review on
the state-of-the-art, Clinical Materials, 1992, 10, 7580.
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

16 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOCOMPOSITES

Z. M. Huang, S. Ramakrishna, and A. A. O. Tay, Unified micromechanical model

for estimating elastic, elasto-plastic, and strength behaviors of knitted fabric
reinforced composites, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 2000,
19(8), 642656.
T. W. Lin, A. A. Corvelli, C. G. Frondoza, J. C. Roberts, and D. S. Hungerford,
Glass peek composite promotes proliferation and osteocalcin production of
human osteoblastic cells, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1997,
36(2), 137144.
N. Moszner and U. Salz, New developments of polymeric dental composites,
Progress in Polymer Science, 2001, 26(4), 535576.
J. W. Nicholson, Adhesive dental materials A review, International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives, 1998, 18(4), 229236.
S. Ramakrishna, J. Mayer, E. Wintermantel, and K. W. Leong, Biomedical appli-
cations of polymer-composite materials: A review, Comp. Sci. & Tech., 2001,
61(9), 11891224.
B. D. Ratner, Biomaterials science: An interdisciplinary endeavor, in Bio-materials
science, an introduction to materials in medicine, eds. B. D. Ratner, A. S. Hoff-
man, F. J. Schoen, and J. E. Lemons, Academic Press, San Diego, 1996, pp. 18.
M. O. Speidel and P. J. Uggowitzer, Biocompatible nickel-free stainless steel
to avoid nickel allergy. Materials in Medicine, eds. M. O. Speidel and
Uggowitzer, vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH zurich, Switzerland, 1998,
pp. 191208.
D. Taylor, Hard and soft tissue mechanics, Comprehensive Structural Integrity,
Vol. 9: Bioengineering, eds. S. H. Teoh and Y.-W. Mai, Elsevier Science
Publisher, UK, 2003.
K. Tayton and J. Bradley, How stiff should semi-rigid fixation of the human tibia
be? Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1983, 65-B, 312315.
K. J. J. Tayton, The use of carbon fiber in human implants: The state of the art,
J. Med. Engng. Tech., 1983, 7, 271272.
P. Tormala, S. Vainionpaa, J. Kilpikari, and P. Rokkanen, The effects of fiber
reinforcement and gold plating on the flexural and tensile strength of PGA/PLA
copolymer materials in vitro, Biomaterials, 1987, 8, 4245.
D. F. Williams (1987), Definitions in biomaterials, Proceedings of a Consen-
sus Conference of the European Society for Biomaterials, Chester, England,
March 35, 1986, 4, Elsevier, New York.
February 27, 2004 11:40 WSPC/Book Trim Size for 9in x 6in chap01

Introduction 17

D. F. Williams, Consensus and definitions in biomaterials, Advances in Biomate-

rials, eds. C. de Putter, K. de Lange, K. de Groot, and A. J. C. Lee, Amsterdam,
Elsevier Science, 1988, pp. 1116.
E. Wintermantel and J. Mayer, Anisotropic biomaterials strategies and devel-
opments for bone implants, in Encyclopedic Handbook of Biomaterials and
Bioengineering, Part B-1, eds. D. L. Wise, D. J. Trantolo, D. E. Altobelli,
J. D. Yaszemiski, J. D. Gresser and E. R. Schwartz, New York, Marcel Dekker,
1995, pp. 342.