Bisphenyl-Polymer/Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Composite Compared to Titanium Alloy Bone Implant

Table 1

Biomaterial properties.

Material	Density (g/cm^3)	Resistivity^a (Ωm)	Tensile strength (MPa)	Yield strength (MPa)	Modulus (GPa)
Bone longitudinal-radial hydrated [8, 9]	1.8–2.1	46–150	70–150	30–70	15–30
Titanium grades 1–4 [9, 18]	4.5–4.51	10^−7	240–550	170–485	104–110
Titanium-6-4aluminum vanadium alloy [8, 9, 18]	4.4–5.0	10^−8	860–1103	795–1034	116–120
Bisphenyl Unidirectional CF^b [1, 2, 18, 19]	1.6	5	780–1850		145–325
Bisphenyl Unidirectional CF^b 4-pt. bend [1, 2, 19]	1.6	5	790–1800		120–255
Bisphenyl/QF^b Exp.Uni-woven laminate 4-pt. bend [17, 19]	1.49 (.01)^c	5	963 (240)^c	774 (176)^c	64 (14.4)^c
Bisphenyl 3-D Woven E-Glass 3-pt. Bend X-Y planes [17]			576 (129)^c	441 (75)^c	26 (18)^c

^aResistivity = 1/conductivity.
^bCF: carbon fiber; QF: quartz fiber.
^cExperimental standard deviations in parentheses.