| Literature DB >> 26816637 |
Abstract
al">Magnesium and its alloys are being al">paid much attenal">pan class="Chemical">tion recently as temporary implants, such as orthopedic implants and cardiovascular stents. However, the rapid degradation of them in physiological environment is a major obstacle preventing their wide applications to date, which will result in rapid mechanical integrity loss or even collapse of magnesium-based implants before injured tissues heal. Moreover, rapid degradation of the magnesium-based implants will also cause some adverse effects to their surrounding environment, such as local gas cavity around the implant, local alkalization and magnesium ion enrichment, which will reduce the integration between implant and tissue. So, in order to obtain better performance of magnesium-based implants in clinical trials, special alloy designs and surface modifications are prerequisite. Actually, when a magnesium-based implant is inserted in vivo, corrosion firstly happens at the implant-tissue interface and the biological response to implant is also determined by the interaction at this interface. So the surface properties, such as corrosion resistance, hemocompatibility and cytocompatibility of the implant, are critical for their in vivo performance. Compared with alloy designs, surface modification is less costly, flexible to construct multi-functional surface and can prevent addition of toxic alloying elements. In this review, we would like to summarize the current investigations of surface modifications of magnesium and its alloys for biomedical application. The advantages/disadvantages of different surface modification methods are also discussed as a suggestion for their utilization.Entities:
Keywords: biocompatibility; biodegradability; coatings; ion implantation; magnesium alloys; surface modification
Year: 2014 PMID: 26816637 PMCID: PMC4669019 DOI: 10.1093/rb/rbu013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Regen Biomater ISSN: 2056-3426
Typical mechanical properties of tissues and biomaterials
| Tissue/material | Density (g/cm3) | Compressive strength (MPa) | Tensile strength (MPa) | Yield strength (MPa) | Elastic modules (GPa) | Elongation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arterial wall | 0.50–1.72 | 0.001 | ||||
| Collagen | 60 | 1.0 | ||||
| Collagen (rat tail tendon) | 3.75–11.5 | |||||
| Cancellous bone | 1.0–1.4 | 1.5–9.3 | 1.5–38 | 0.01–1.57 | ||
| Cortical bone | 1.8–2.0 | 160 Trans. | 35 Trans. | 5–23 | ||
| 240 Long. | 283 Long. | |||||
| Cobalt–chrome alloys | 7.8 | 450–960 | 195–230 | |||
| Stainless steel | 7.9 | 480–620 | 193–200 | |||
| Titanium alloys | 4.4 | 550–985 | 100–125 | |||
| Synthetic hydroxyapatite | 3.05–3.15 | 100–900 | 40–200 | 70–120 | ||
| Alumina ceramics | 3.30–3.99 | 2000–4000 | 260–410 | |||
| (Al2O3 80–90%) | ||||||
| Polymethylmethacrylate | 1.12–1.20 | 45–107 | 38–80 | 1.8–3.3 | ||
| (PMMA) | ||||||
| Polyethylene- | 1.31–1.38 | 65–90 | 42–80 | 2.2–3.5 | ||
| terephthalate (PET) | ||||||
| Pure magnesium | 1.74 | 20–115 | 90–190 | 45 | ||
| AZ31 (Extruded) | 1.78 | 83–97 | 241–260 | 45 | ||
| AZ91D (Die cast) | 1.81 | 160 | 230 | 45 | ||
| Mg–6Zn | 433.7 ± 1.4 | 279.5 ± 2.3 | 169.5 ± 3.6 | 42.3 ± 0.1 | 18.8 ± 0.8 | |
| Mg–1Ca (cast) | 71.38 ± 3.01 | 1.87 ± 0.14 | ||||
| Mg–1Ca (rolled) | 166.7 ± 3.01 | 3 ± 0.78 | ||||
| Mg–1Ca (extruded) | 239.63 ± 7.21 | 10.63 ± 0.64 | ||||
| Mg–0.6Ca | 273.2 ± 6.1 | 114.4 ± 15.1 | 46.5 ± 0.6 | |||
| Mg–1.2Ca | 254.1 ± 7.9 | 96.5 ± 6.6 | 49.6 ± 0.9 | |||
| Mg–1.6Ca | 252.5 ± 3.3 | 93.7 ± 7.8 | 54.7 ± 2.4 | |||
| Mg–2.0Ca | 232.9 ± 3.7 | 73.1 ± 3.4 | 58.8 ± 1.2 | |||
| Mg–2Sr (rolled) | 213.3 ± 17.2 | 147.3 ± 13.1 | 3.15 ± 0.3 | |||
| Mg–6Ag | 244.1 ± 9.2 | 215.9 ± 11.3 | 45 ± 1 | |||
| Mg–0.5Ca–0.5Sr | 274.3 ± 7.2 | |||||
| Mg–1.0Ca–0.5Sr | 274.2 ± 4.0 | |||||
| Mg–0.1Ca–1.0Sr | 214.5 ± 3.5 | |||||
| Mg–1Zn–1Mn (cast) | 174 | 44 | 12 | |||
| Mg–1Zn–1Mn (extruded) | 280 | 246 | 22 |
Note: Data compiled from Refs [28, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61].
Figure 1.Schematic diagram illustrating the corrosion failure mechanism of surface modified magnesium and its alloys: (a) coated magnesium substrate and (b) ion implanted magnesium substrate.
Figure 2.(a) Surface and cross-sectional morphologies of Mg(OH)2 film by NaOH treatment for 3 h [66]. (b) Digital photographs and FE-SEM images of color-tuned surfaces on AZ31 alloy by water treatment [69]. (c) Surface and cross-sectional morphologies of fluoride-treated AZ31 alloy for 72 h. The insert shows the high magnification [71]. (d) Surface and cross-sectional morphologies of the MAO-coated Mg–Zn–Zr alloy [76]. (e) Surface morphologies of Mg–Fe–CO3 LDH layers on pure magnesium by different treatment process [80].
Figure 3.(a) Surface morphologies of DCPD, HA and FHA on Mg–Zn alloy by electrodeposition process [87]. (b) Surface morphologies of DCPD [92], β-TCP [94] and HA [96] on magnesium substrate by chemical solution treatment. (c) Surface morphologies of DCPD, DCPD-HA and HA on magnesium substrate by biomimetic process [98].
Figure 4.(a) Surface morphologies of compact polymer coatings on magnesium substrate [101]. (b) Surface morphologies of porous PCL coatings on AZ91 alloy [35]. (c) Surface morphologies of PEDOT conductive coatings fabricated on magnesium with different processes [104].
Figure 5.(a) Surface and sectional morphologies of DCPD/MgF2 and HA/MgF2 composite coatings on Mg–Ca–Zn alloy [108]. (b) Surface morphologies of WE42, WE42-MAO, WE42-MAO/PLLA and corrosion mass loss of WE42, WE42-MAO/PLLA [109]. (c) Surface morphologies and elemental compositions of MAO and calcification MAO coatings, cross-sectional morphology of calcification MAO coating [111].
Figure 6.(a) XPS depth profile of CO2-PIII-treated AZ31 alloy and polarization curves of untreated and CO2-PIII-treated AZ31 alloy in DMEM and SBF [115]. (b) XPS depth profile, polarization curve in SBF and corrosion in SBF for 18 h of Zn-PIII-treated pure Mg [116]. (c) XPS depth profile, GIXRD pattern and polarization curve in SBF of Al-PIII-treated pure Mg [117].
Figure 7.(a) XPS depth profile, polarization curve and EIS spectrum of Al–O dual ion implantation treated WE43 alloy [120]. (b) XPS depth profiles and polarization curves of Ti and Ti–O dual ion implantation treated WE43 alloy [122]. (c) XPS depth profile and polarization curves in SBF and Na2SO4 of Cr–O dual ion implantation treated pure Mg [125].