SiNtx Technologies Inc (SINT)

[SmokerX]

Biolox forte or biolox delta? It's forte

According to the manufacturer (CeramTec GmbH, Plochingen, Germany), the use of Biolox Delta ceramic has reduced the rate of femoral head fractures to 0.003% compared to 0.021% with alumina ceramic. The fracture rate of liners has remained stable, at approximately 0.03%. The number of ANSM reports confirmed these tendencies. The rate of head component fractures decreases as the head diameter increases.

The average burst test strength for the silicon nitride femoral heads in these tests was 75 kilonewtons, or kNs, compared with 65 kN forBIOLOX® delta, or about a 15% improvement. The burst strengths observed in our tests for BIOLOX® delta femoral heads are comparable to those observed by an independent party testing the same design BIOLOX® delta femoral heads as we did.

Extrapolating that 15% of .003 is .00045 so I expect to see a further reduction to 0.0025% rate of fracture of SiNi vs Biolox delta.

We also conducted burst strength tests of 36 mm femoral heads made from our silicon nitride which showed those femoral heads had burst strengths that averaged 164 kN

Running the math on that is .003(the biolox delta rate for fracture) minus roughly 150% improvement so .0045. .003 minus .0045 looks like a 0% rate of fracture by using a 36mm sini femoral head

Because I`m suggesting a COC involving an acetabular cup design not just the head. So how would you design a cup with a similar 0% risk of fracture?

I would use concrete technology. Specifically reinforcement in concrete IE embedding a metal reinforcement deep within a SiNi acetabular cup

Rebar helps to alleviate this issue because, unlike concrete, rebar is pretty great taking tensile stress.

Concrete is great at taking compaction strength.

This is the technology were seeing in H1. In order to do this they would need brazing.

All these things are being discussed on the cutting edge of hip implant design right here. I am a guy that makes internet posts.