Drilling through the bone is a complicated process in orthopaedic surgery. It involves human as a part of the work so it needs better perfection and quality which leads to the sustainability. Different studies were carried out on this curious topic and some interesting results were obtained, which help the orthopaedic surgeon on the operation table. Major problems faced during bone drilling were crack initiation, thermal necrosis and burr formation. The surface topography of the bone is an indirect indication for the sustainability of bone joint. In this study, a comparison is made between conventional and a loose abrasive unconventional drilling technique for the surface characterization of the bone. The attempt has been made to show the feasibility of bone drilling with non-conventional technique and its aftereffect on the bone structure. The burr formation during conventional bone drilling was found to be more which leads to problems such as crack initiation and thermal necrosis. Scanning electrode microscope and surface roughness tester were used to characterize the surface of the fine drilled bone specimen and the results testified quite better surface finish and least crack formation while drilling with loose abrasive unconventional technique.
UdiljakTCiglarDSkoricS. Investigation into bone drilling and thermal bone necrosis. Adv Prod Eng Manag2007; 2: 103–112.
2.
LeeJGozenBAOzdoganlarOB. Modeling and experimentation of bone drilling forces. J Biomech2012; 45: 1076–1083.
3.
InakiDJorgeJGMarcosL. Bone drilling methodology and tool based on position measurements. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2013; 112: 284–292.
4.
AllottaBBelmonteFBosioL. Study on a mechatronic tool for drilling in the osteosynthesis of long bones: tool/bone interaction, modeling and experiments. Mechatronics1996; 6: 447–459.
PandeyRKPandaSS. Drilling of bone: a comprehensive review. J Clin Orthop Trauma2013; 4: 15–30.
7.
MatthewsLSHirschC. Temperatures measured in human cortical bone when drilling. J Bone Joint Surg Am1972; 54: 297–308.
8.
AugustinGDavilaSMihociK. Thermal osteonecrosis and bone drilling parameters revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2008; 128: 71–77.
9.
HilleryHTShuaibI. Temperature effects in drilling of human and bovine bone. J Mater Process Tech1999; 92–93: 302–308.
10.
JacobCHBerryJT. A study of the bone machining process – drilling. J Biomech1976; 9: 343–349.
11.
TuijthofGFrühwirtCKmentC. Influence of tool geometry on drilling performance of cortical and trabecular bone. Med Eng Phys2013; 35: 1165–1172.
12.
KarmaniSLamF. The design and function of surgical drills and K-wires. Curr Orthop2004; 18: 484–490.
13.
YangYXWangCYQinZ. Temperature of bone by surgical drill. Adv Abras Technol Xiii2010; 126–128: 779–784.
14.
NataliCInglePDowellJ. Orthopaedic bone drills – can they be improved? Temperature changes near the drilling face. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78B: 357–362.
15.
AugustinGDavilaSUdiljakT. Temperature changes during cortical bone drilling with a newly designed step drill and an internally cooled drill. Int Orthop2012; 36: 1449–1456.
16.
LeeWYShihCLLeeST. Force control and breakthrough detection of a bone-drilling system. IEEE: ASME T Mech2004; 9: 20–29.
BagciEOzcelikB. Effects of different cooling conditions on twist drill temperature. Int J Adv Manuf Tech2007; 34: 867–877.
19.
AugustinGZigmanTDavilaS. Cortical bone drilling and thermal osteonecrosis. Clin Biomech2012; 27: 313–325.
20.
SuiJSugitaNIshiiK. Mechanistic modeling of bone-drilling process with experimental validation. J Mater Process Tech2014; 214: 1018–1026.
21.
PandeyRKPandaSS. Optimization of bone drilling parameters using grey-based fuzzy algorithm. Measurement2014; 47: 386–392.
22.
GehrkeSNetoHMardeganF. Investigation of the effect of movement and irrigation systems on temperature in the conventional drilling of cortical bone. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 51: 953–957.
23.
JeongSYooJHFangY. The effect of guided flapless implant procedure on heat generation from implant drilling. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. Epub ahead of print 14November2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.11.002.
24.
KaracaFAksakalBKomM. Influence of orthopaedic drilling parameters on temperature and histopathology of bovine tibia: an in vitro study. Med Eng Phys2011; 33: 1221–1227.
25.
FranssenBBVan DiestPJSchuurmanAH. Drilling K-wires, what about the osteocytes? An experimental study in rabbits. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2008; 128: 83–87.
26.
AugustinGDavilaSUdiljakT. Determination of spatial distribution of increase in bone temperature during drilling by infrared thermography: preliminary report. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2009; 129: 703–709.
27.
SchwiegerKCarreroVRentzschR. Abrasive water jet cutting as a new procedure for cutting cancellous bone – in vitro testing in comparison with the oscillating saw. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2004; 71: 223–228.
28.
BiskupCHoverMVersemannR. Heat generation during abrasive water-jet osteotomies measured by thermocouples. Strojniski vestn: J Mech Eng2006; 52: 451–457.
29.
HlochSValicekJKozakD. Preliminary results of experimental cutting of porcine bones by abrasive waterjet. Tech Gaz2011; 18(3): 467–470.
30.
DunnenSMulderL. Waterjet drilling in porcine bone: the effect of the nozzle diameter and bone architecture on the hole dimensions. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2013; 27: 84–93.
31.
EshetYMannRRAnatonA. Microwave drilling of bone. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2006; 53: 1174–1182.
32.
AlamKMitrofanovAVSilberschmidtVV. Measurements of surface roughness in conventional and ultrasonically assisted bone drilling. Am J Biomed Sci2009; 1: 312–320.
33.
AlamKMitrofanovAVSilberschmidtVV. Experimental investigations of forces and torque in conventional and ultrasonically-assisted drilling of cortical bone. Med Eng Phys2011; 33: 234–239.
34.
WangYMengCYuanyuanZ. Experimental investigations on microcracks in vibrational and conventional drilling of cortical bone. J Nanomater2013; 2013: 845205 (5 pp.).
35.
SinghRKhambaJS. Mathematical modelling of tool wear rate in ultrasonic machining of titanium. Int J Adv Manuf Tech2009; 43: 573–580.
36.
JainVSharmaAKKumarP. Recent development and research issues in microultrasonic machining. ISRN Mech Eng2011; 2011: 413231 (15 pp.).
37.
MorelandMA. Versatile performance of ultrasonic machining. Am Ceram Soc Bull1988; 67: 1045–1047.
38.
JainVSharmaAKKumarP. Investigation on tool wear on micro ultrasonic machining. Appl Mech Mater2012; 110–116: 1361–1366.
39.
SoundararajanVRadhakrishnanV. An experimental investigation on the basic mechanisms involved in ultrasonic machining. Int J Mach Tool D R1986; 26: 307–321.
40.
SatyanarayanaAKrishna ReddyBG. Design of velocity transformers for ultrasonic machining. Electr India1984; 24: 11–20.
41.
VashishthD. Rising crack-growth-resistance behavior in cortical bone: implications for toughness measurements. J Biomech2004; 37: 943–946.
42.
VashishthDTannerKEBonfieldW. Contribution, development and morphology of microcracking in cortical bone during crack propagation. J Biomech2000; 33: 1169–1174.
43.
O’BrienFJTaylorDLeeTC. The effect of bone microstructure on the initiation and growth of microcracks. J Orthop Res2005; 23: 475–480.
