| Literature DB >> 32366008 |
Charlotte Skjöldebrand1, Gry Hulsart-Billström2, Håkan Engqvist1, Cecilia Persson1.
Abstract
Ceramic coatings may prolong the lifetime of joint implants. Certain ions and wear debris may however lead to negative biological efEntities:
Keywords: biocompatibility; carbon; coating; implant; iron; mechanical properties; silicon nitride; surface roughness
Year: 2020 PMID: 32366008 PMCID: PMC7254256 DOI: 10.3390/ma13092074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Deposition setup displaying (a) the three targets (silicon, iron, and carbon) and the position of the silicon wafer substrate, and (b) a schematic image of the sample with the five investigated points and their coordinates in mm with point 3 as origin.
The obtained composition (Si, Fe, C, N and O), thickness, surface roughness, mechanical properties (H and M) and cell density.
| Point | x [mm] | y [mm] | Si | Fe [at.%] | C | N | O | t [nm] | Ra | H | M | Cell Density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 40 | 33.9 ± 0.5 | 10.2 ± 0.3 | 8.2 ± 0.1 | 47.2 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 633 | 1.9 ± 0.5 | 16.5 ± 1.2 | 212.1 ± 8.0 | 138 ± 42 |
|
| 40 | 40 | 27.6 ± 2.8 | 18.2 ± 3.4 | 10.0 ± 1.5 | 43.7 ± 0.9 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 467 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 13.7 ± 0.9 | 193.2 ± 6.9 | 63 ± 27 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 32.5 ± 0.4 | 9.6 ± 0.4 | 11.6 ± 0.3 | 46.0 ± 0.8 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 630 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 17.3 ± 0.7 | 210.6 ± 5.8 | 139 ± 58 |
|
| 40 | 0 | 26.0 ± 0.9 | 20.0 ± 0.3 | 13.9 ± 0.2 | 39.7 ± 0.7 | 0.6 ± 0.03 | 507 | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 14.7 ± 0.8 | 189.8 ± 6.9 | 81 ± 70 |
|
| 20 | 20 | 30.0 ± 0.1 | 13.8 ± 0.4 | 11.6 ± 0.2 | 44.2 ± 0.4 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 576 | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 16.0 ± 1.1 | 204.4 ± 7.8 | 263 ± 167 |
Figure 2An overview of the various input and output parameters and their correlations. Each rectangle represents a graph where the input parameters are found on the x-axis and the output on the y-axis. Please note that the compositional elements (Si, C, Fe, N and O) are both output and input parameters as they vary as a function of the coordinates (x and y) and are important to consider as input parameters for the thickness, surface roughness (Ra), mechanical properties (H and M), and cell density. Cases where there was a statistically significant correlation were marked with red stars rather than black circles.
Figure 3Compositional gradients based on ToF-ERDA measurements. The fit is created using a piecewise linear interpolation that fits a linear polynomial between sets of three points, e.g., 1, 3 and 5.
Figure 4XRD diffractograms for points 1–5. The only detectable peak was the Si (400) at 69°.
Figure 5SEM images of a fractured cross-section and the surface for (a) point 1, (b) point 2, (c) point 3, (d) point 4 and (e) point 5. The images reveal a columnar structure and differences in thickness for all five points.
Figure 6SEM images of the surface in point 1. All points exhibited a similar appearance.
Figure 7Hardness and modulus gradients based on nanoindentation measurements at points 1–5. A piecewise linear interpolation between sets of three points was used to create the fit. The modulus relates to the Young’s modulus by (1 − ν2).
Figure 8MC3T3 cells stained with Hoechst and CFDA-SE and imaged in a fluorescent microscope for point 1 in (a), point 2 in (b), point 3 in (c), point 4 in (d), point 5 in (e) and the tissue culture plastic control in (f). The quantified number of cells/mm2, shown in (g), displays high standard deviations and no significant differences, neither between points nor to the control. To better visualize the results the cell density is presented as a color plot, (h).