4.7 Article

An in-vitro evaluation study on the effects of surface modification via physical vapor deposition on the degradation rates of magnesium-based biomaterials

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 411, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.126972

关键词

Biomaterials; Magnesium; Iron; Biocompatibility; Cardiovascular

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research focused on surface modification of pure magnesium with coatings of pure iron and hydroxyapatite, which improved mechanical strength and decreased corrosion rate. The study showed that all three substrates - pure magnesium, pure iron, and hydroxyapatite - exhibited non-hemolytic properties, and coating did not affect biological characteristics.
Magnesium (Mg) metal as a degradable biomaterial is under extensive research, but its high corrosion rate limits its application. In this study, an attempt has been made to increase the viability of pure Mg as a degradable biomaterial for cardiovascular applications with surface modification of pure Mg. Pure Iron (Fe) and hydroxyapatite (HaP) were coated on pure Mg substrates. Analysis of their mechanical and biological characteristics was made. The tensile strength for pure Mg was 80 MPa, Fe and HaP coating on Mg increased the tensile strength values by approximately 45% and 21%, respectively. A maximum degradation rate of about 5.4 mm/year was observed for pure Mg. HaP coating decreased the degradation rate by almost 73%. However, galvanic corrosion caused a sixfold rise in the degradation rate for Fe coating. Hemolysis study indicated all three substrates as non-hemolytic, and the cell viability from MTT cytotoxic assay for uncoated, Fe and HaP coated substrates are 96.24%, 94.8% and 97.13%, respectively. Pure Mg is non-hemolytic and non-cytotoxic, coating Fe and HaP does not affect biological properties but improved the mechanical strength. This work, therefore, establishes altered Mg substrates as effective material for cardiovascular applications.

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