4.6 Article

On the High Sensitivity of Corrosion Resistance of NiTi Stents with Respect to Inclusions: An Experimental Evidence

Journal

ACS OMEGA
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 3073-3079

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b04312

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Group of Structural Metallurgy (MS)
  2. Group of Interfaces, Electrochemistry, Energy (I2E)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the electrochemical breakdown potentials (E-b) of NiTi stents were assessed in correlation to their nonmetallic inclusion fractions in the extra low inclusion (ELI) range (inclu.% < 1% in area fraction, average size <39 mu m). Quantitative investigations were performed to study the role of nonmetallic inclusions during pitting corrosion. Two stent samples with different inclusion fractions were fabricated using commercial NiTi tubes for studying the corrosion and mechanism. A survey of seven commercial stents in Europe was also conducted. Dependence was observed between the breakdown potentials and the inclusion fractions in the ELI stent (inclu.% = 0.2-0.8%), in which the breakdown potentials were found to be inversely proportional to inclusion fractions and densities (E h dropped from similar to 800 to similar to 400 mV). No breakdown occurred on the samples using high-purity NiTi materials (inclu.% < 0.1%). The roles of inclusions in pitting mechanisms were investigated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) characterizations. The microstructural evidence showed that the impact of TiC and Ti(2)NiQ(x) was very different in the pitting process. A maximum inclu.% <= 0.9% was required for obtaining E-b >= 600 mV to meet the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA's) in vivo safety acceptance (low risk up to 6 months postimplantation). The high-purity stents (inclu.% < 0.1%) did not exhibit corrosion susceptibility until 1000 mV, suggesting superior corrosion resistance and thus long-term in vivo safety.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available