Email this page

Mandatory fields are marked with an asterisk [*].

Fill in your email details
1. * Your name:
2. * Your email address:
3. * Recipient name:
4. * Recipient email address:
Note: Smith & Nephew does not collect or make use of the email addresses or names provided here. They are only used to show the recipient who has sent the message.
Change the message if you want to
1. To: <recipient name> <address>
2. From: <sender name> <address>
3. Subject: <sender name> is sending you a link
4. Hi,
  I saw this on the Smith & Nephew site and thought you might be interested.
5. <sender name>
Visitor verfication
1. *Type the code shown

OXINIUM™

Oxidized Zirconium

OXINIUM vs. CoCr

OXINIUM Implants vs. Cobalt Chrome²⁰

Wear Stimulator Results

Cobalt chrome and OXINIUM femorals were tested against polyethylene tibials using a three-axis physiological simulator. The wear rate was measured gravimetrically; wear particles were estimated by filtration and image analysis. The wear testing continued to six million cycles using a 90% gait and 10% stair climbing protocol.

The cobalt chrome femorals produced significantly greater wear and more wear particles than produced by the OXINIUM femorals.
The OXINIUM material resulted in an 85% reduction in polyethylene wear rate when compared to cobalt chrome.

UHMWPE Average Wear Rate

UHMWPE Wear Debris | Particle Comparison

Although abrasive wear conditions were not intentionally created, the cobalt chrome femorals developed numerous scratches, some deep, early in the wear test. The OXINIUM femorals remained virtually pristine throughout the test.

The aggregate poly wear rate for the OXINIUM femoral group was less by 85% (p<0.05).