4.7 Article

Fabrication of corrosion resistant, bioactive and antibacterial silver substituted hydroxyapatite/titania composite coating on Cp Ti

期刊

CERAMICS INTERNATIONAL
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 731-740

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2011.07.065

关键词

Microwave processing; Nanocomposites; Corrosion; Biomedical applications

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi [BT/PR-11731/MED/32/99/2008]
  2. UGC-Networking Resource Centre for Materials, Department of Materials Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present work is aimed at developing a bioactive, corrosion resistant and anti bacterial nanostructured silver substituted hydroxyapatite/titania (AgHA/TiO2) composite coating in a single step on commercially pure titanium (Cp Ti) by plasma electrolytic processing (PEP) technique. For this purpose 2.5 wt% silver substituted hydroxyapatite (AgHA) nanoparticles were prepared by microwave processing technique and were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier-transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) methods. The as-synthesized AgHA particles with particle length ranging from 60 to 70 nm and width ranging from 15 to 20 nm were used for the subsequent development of coating on Cp Ti. The PEP treated Cp Ti showed both titania and AgHA in its coating and exhibited an improved corrosion resistance in 7.4 pH simulated body fluid (SBF) and 4.5 pH osteoclast bioresorbable conditions compared to untreated Cp Ti. The in vitro bioactivity test conducted under Kokubo SBF conditions indicated an enhanced apatite forming ability of PEP treated Cp Ti surface compared to that of the untreated Cp Ti. The Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method or antibiotic sensitivity test conducted with the test organisms of Escherichia coli (E. coli) for 24 h showed a significant zone of inhibition for PEP treated Cp Ti compared to untreated Cp Ti. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. 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