| Literature DB >> 32587850 |
Mostafizur Rahman1, Naba K Dutta1, Namita Roy Choudhury1.
Abstract
ass="Chemical">Magnesium (Entities:
Keywords: biomedical application; corrosion; interfacial engineering; magnesium alloy; surface coating
Year: 2020 PMID: 32587850 PMCID: PMC7297987 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00564
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Mechanical properties, advantages, and disadvantages of metallic implants (Mani et al., 2007; Moravej and Mantovani, 2011; Chen and Thouas, 2015; Pandey et al., 2020).
| Mg | 1.74 | 41–45 | Almost similar density and mechanical properties to that of natural bone | Rapidly corrode in the physiological environment |
| Mg based alloy (WE43 ASTM B107/B107M) | 1.84 | 41–45 | ||
| Stainless steels (SS316) | 8 | 193 | High wear resistance | Higher modulus of elasticity |
| Co-Cr alloys (ASTM F90) | 9.2 | 210 | High strength | Causes allergic due to Co, Cr, and Ni |
| Ti alloys (Ti-6Al-4V ASTM grade 1) | 4.4 | 110 | High biocompatibility | Causes toxic effect due to V and Al for long term applications. Low corrosion and wear properties as compared to other permanent implants but better than Mg |
Figure 1Physio-chemical properties of biodegradable Mg alloys for biomedical applications.
Figure 2(A) Several forms of corrosion and (B) corrosion mechanism of CaP coated Mg substrate in physiological environment.
Figure 3Schematic illustration of interfacial engineering of untreated Mg alloys.
Figure 4Effect of surface roughness on cellular behavior.
Figure 5(A) Illustration of number of scientific publications from 2008 to 2018 using the search terms “magnesium” and “biomedical applications”. Data analysis was performed on 14 August 2019 using Scopus search system. (B) Basic requirements of biomaterials.
Figure 6Schematic illustration of various coatings: (Left) polymer coatings: Col, CS—bioactive coatings, PLA, PLGA, PCL, PDA-bioinert coatings and (Right) biomimetic coatings (Left figure: Reprinted with the permission; Li et al., 2018). Copyright 2018, Elsevier.
Figure 7Potentiodynamic polarization curves of PCL, PLA, and uncoated AZ91 Mg alloy in SBF solution. Reprinted with permission (Chen et al., 2011). Copyright 2011, IOP publishing.
Figure 8Schematic structural formula of Bio-MOF coating on Mg alloy. Reprinted with permission (Liu et al., 2019). Copyright 2019, Elsevier.
Corrosion performance of different coating processes.
| Mg-Zn-Ca | HA | SBF | −1.41 | 25 | – | Wang et al., |
| AZ31 | HA | SBF | −1.57 | 5.56 | – | Sun et al., |
| AZ91 | Hybrid | 3.5% NaCl | – | – | 430 | Ashassi-Sorkhabi et al., |
| AZ31 | Composite | SBF | −1.62 | 3.4 × 10−4 | – | Wei et al., |
| AZ31 | PLA | SBF | −1.57 | 7.72 | – | Shi et al., |
| Mg-6Zn | PLGA | 0.9 NaCl | −1.44 | 0.085 | – | Li et al., |
| Mg | PCL | Hank's solution | −1.53 | 0.0045 | – | Li et al., |
| AZ31B | Hybrid | 0.005 NaCl | – | – | 160 | Lamaka et al., |
Figure 9Schematic of cellular response in different environment in various timescale: (A) osteoblast cells with physico-chemical interaction, (B) cell attachment with integrin binding, and (C) key steps in osseointegration and bone TE. Adapted with permission from Pioletti (2010).
Figure 10Cell viability of uncoated and hybrid coated AZ31 Mg alloy for different immersion periods. Reprinted with permission (Zhu et al., 2017). Copyright 2017, MDPI.
Figure 11SKP map of pristine: uncoated mild steel (MS), 3-[(methacryloyloxy)propyl] trimethoxysilane (MEMO): 2-(methacryloyloxy) ethyl phosphate (EGMP) M:E 1:1 and M:E 3:7 samples and gold on Al as reference. Reprinted with permission (Kannan et al., 2010). Copyright 2010, Elsevier.
Figure 12Schematic illustration of bone remodeling on Mg through signaling pathways in the microenvironment regulating the cross talk of osteoblast to osteoclast.
Figure 13Osteoblastic cell morphology of hybrid coating on Mg sample. (A) Bare Mg, (B) pure PEI, (C) PEI-15% silica, and (D) PEI-30% silica coated Mg specimens after 6 h cell attachment. Reprinted with permission (Kang et al., 2016). Copyright 2016, IOP publishing.
Figure 14Confocal microscopy of scaffolds: (a) PA66 scaffold, (b) n-HA/GF/PA66 scaffold (X200), (c) n-HA/GF/PA66 scaffold (X500), and (d) n-HA/GF/PA66 scaffold (X1000) after 4d cell culture. Reprinted with permission (Su et al., 2013). Copyright 2013, Elsevier.
Biocompatibility of different types of coating.
| Mg | HA | Immersion | MCT3T3-E1 | + | Kim et al., |
| AZ31 | PDA/HA | Immersion | L-929 | + | Lin et al., |
| AZ91 | CaP/PLLA | EDP | – | + | Kannan and Liyanaarachchi, |
| Mg-1Li-1Ca | MAO/PLLA | MAO+ Dipping | MCT3T3-E1 | ++ | Zeng et al., |
| AZ31/Mg4Y | PLGA | Dipping | MCT3T3-E1 | Ostrowski et al., | |
| AZ31 | PCL | Electrospinning | L6 | + | Hanas et al., |
| AZ31B | FHA/MAO | Hydrothermal | MCT3T3-E1 | + | Yu et al., |
| AZ31/ZK41 | Hybrid | Sol-gel | Fibroblast | ++ | Córdoba et al., |
+, good; ++, excellent.
Figure 15Radiography examination of composite coated Mg alloy implant in the femur of rabbit for different time periods. Yellow arrows, periosteal reaction/callus; green arrows, hydrogen bubble; blue arrows, residual implant. (a–c) Anteroposterior view of femurs in the experimental group; (e–g) lateral view of femurs in the experimental group; (d,h) anteroposterior and lateral view of femurs in the control group (Liu et al., 2020).