4.8 Article

Biomechanical testing and degradation analysis of MgCa0.8 alloy screws: A comparative in vivo study in rabbits

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 1421-1428

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.10.031

关键词

Degradation; In vivo test; Magnesium; Mechanical test; Scanning electron microscopy

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of degradable magnesium calcium alloy (MgCa0.8) screws and commonly used stainless steel (S316L) screws and to assess the in vivo degradation behavior of MgCa0.8. MgCa0.8 screws (n = 48) and S316L screws (n = 32) were implanted into both tibiae of 40 adult rabbits for a follow-up of 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks. This resulted in a testing group of MgCa0.8 (n = 12) and S316L (n = 8) screws for each follow-up. Uniaxial pull-out tests were carried out in an MTS 858 Mini Bionix at a rate of 0.1 mm s(-1). For degradation analysis of MgCa0.8 in vivo micro-computed tomography (ACT) was performed to determine the volume of metal alloy remaining. Retrieved MgCa0.8 screws were analysed for degradation by determination of weight changes, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray analyses. No significant differences could be noted between the pull-out forces of MgCa0.8 and S316L 2 weeks after surgery (P = 0.121). Six weeks after surgery the pull-out force of MgCa0.8 decreased slightly. In contrast, the S316L pull-out force increased with time. Thus, significantly higher pull-out values were detected for S316L from 4 weeks on (P < 0.001). The volume and weight of MgCa0.8 gradually reduced. A corrosion layer, mainly composed of oxygen, magnesium, calcium and phosphorus, formed on the implants. Since MgCa0.8 showed good biocompatibility and biomechanical properties, comparable with those of S316L in the first 2-3 weeks of implantation, its application as a biodegradable implant is conceivable. (C) 2010 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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