4.7 Article

Corrosion and antibacterial performance of novel selective-laser-melted (SLMed) Ti-xCu biomedical alloys

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLOYS AND COMPOUNDS
卷 864, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.158415

关键词

Ti-xCu alloys; Selective laser melting (SLM); Corrosion; Antibacterial activity; Cytocompatibility

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [51874368]
  2. Guangdong Provincial Applied Science and Technology Research and Development Program [2015B090926007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ti-xCu biomedical alloys prepared by selective laser melting show good antibacterial properties, with the optimal Cu content being 3 to 5 wt%. The hardness of the alloys increases with higher Cu content, and the size of Ti2Cu particles and grain size decrease as Cu content increases.
Ti-xCu biomedical alloys were designed to have satisfactory antibacterial properties compared to pure Ti. Ti-xCu (x = 0, 3, 5, 7, and 10 wt%) alloys were prepared by selective laser melting (SLM) using powders of pure Ti and pure Cu. Increasing Cu content decreased the grain size, increased the amount and size of Ti2Cu particles, and increased the hardness. The electrochemical experiments revealed that Ti-5Cu had the best corrosion resistance, and excessive Cu decreased the corrosion resistance. In vitro culture of MG63 cells showed that SLMed Ti-xCu had good cytocompatibility. In vitro antibacterial test of E. coli showed that SLMed Ti-3Cu presented a stable highly-effective antibacterial rate (antibacterial rate > 99%), in which the Cu content of 3 wt% was lower than the minimum copper content requirement of 5 wt% in conventional-processes manufactured Ti-Cu alloys that presented a stable highly-effective antibacterial rate. The mechanisms of corrosion and antibacterial performance were clarified. The SLMed Ti-xCu with antibacterial ability is a promising biomedical implant material. The content of the Cu was recommended to be 3 similar to 5 wt%. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据