World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Surface Characterization of Strontium Phosphate Coating on Magnesium for Bioimplant Applications: A Preliminary In Vitro Study

Sneha Devarakonda, Aravind Kumar Subramanian, Pugalmani Sivashanmugam

Keywords : Bioimplant, Bioresorbable, Implant, Magnesium, Strontium, Sustainable

Citation Information : Devarakonda S, Subramanian AK, Sivashanmugam P. Surface Characterization of Strontium Phosphate Coating on Magnesium for Bioimplant Applications: A Preliminary In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (3):208-213.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2385

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Introduction and aim: The aim of this study was to characterize a strontium phosphate (Sr–P)-coated pure magnesium (Mg) substrate to study its potential use as a bioimplant. Materials and methods: The present study coated pure Mg substrate with Sr–P by hydrothermal treatment. The coated samples were evaluated using contact angle measurements, atomic force microscopy (AFM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDAX), infrared spectroscopy (IR), and cytotoxicity in the presence of MG-63 cells. An uncoated sample of pure Mg was used as a negative control for comparison in all the tests. The parameters mentioned were used to characterize the surface interactions and properties of the Mg samples in the presence of Sr–P coating. Results: The presence of a coating on the substrate was confirmed by EDAX analysis, and its elemental composition was noted. Mg coated with Sr–P surface displayed a higher contact angle (103.6) than the uncoated sample (74.2). The surface roughness of coated Mg reduced from 419 to 218 nm, and cell viability indicated low toxicity in biological tissue. Conclusion: Characterization of Sr–P coating on Mg substrate indicated lesser permeability to moisture, homogeneous surface topography, significant biocompatibility and low toxicity in comparison to the uncoated Mg substrate, suggesting its potential use as a bioimplant material. Clinical significance: Strontium phosphate (Sr–P)-coated Mg has demonstrated properties superior to an uncoated Mg sample. Further studies are required to assess the performance of the coated material in a clinical scenario, suggesting its potential to be used as a novel implant material.

PDF Share
  1. Rikhari B, Saranya K, Kalaiyarasan M, et al. Bioactive conductive polymer-coated titanium to support osseointegration. Biomass Conv Bioref 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s13399-023-04712-w
  2. Madhu K, Kannan S, Perumal A, et al. Biofunctionalized nanocomposite coating on Cp-titanium with reduce implant failures. Vacuum 2023;215:112328. DOI: 10.1016/j.vacuum.2023.112328
  3. Mecenas P, Espinosa DG, Cardoso PC, et al. Stainless steel or titanium mini-implants? Angle Orthod 2020;90(4):587–597. DOI: 10.2319/081619-536.1
  4. Wang JY, Wicklund BH, Gustilo RB, et al. Titanium, chromium and cobalt ions modulate the release of bone-associated cytokines by human monocytes/macrophages in vitro. Biomaterials 1996;17(23):2233–2240. DOI: 10.1016/0142-9612(96)00072-5
  5. Erne P, Schier M, Resink TJ. The road to bioabsorbable stents: reaching clinical reality? CardioVasc Int Radiol 2006;29:11–16. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-004-0341-9
  6. Suzuki EY, Suzuki B. Placement and removal torque values of orthodontic miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139(5):669–678. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.11.017
  7. Song GL: Corrosion of Magnesium Alloys. Song GL (ed): Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom: 2011.
  8. Knochel P. A flash of magnesium. Nat Chem 2009;1(9):740. DOI: 10.1038/nchem.459
  9. Zeng RC, Li XT, Li SQ, et al. In-vitro degradation of pure Mg in response to glucose. Sci Rep 2015;5:13026. DOI: 10.1038/srep13026
  10. Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ, Skipor AK, et al. Metal degradation products: a cause for concern in metal-metal bearings? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;(417):139–147. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000096810.78689.62
  11. Wolf FI, Cittadini A. Chemistry and biochemistry of magnesium. Mol Asp Med 2003;24:3–9. DOI: 10.1016/s0098-2997(02)00087-0
  12. Hänzi AC, Gerber I, Schinhammer M, et al. On the in vitro and in vivo degradation performance and biological response of new biodegradable Mg-Y-Zn alloys. Acta Biomater 2010;6:1824–1833. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.10.008
  13. Choudhary L, Raman RKS. Cracking of magnesium-based biodegradable implant alloys under the combined action of stress and corrosive body fluid: a review. Emerg Mater Res 2013;2(5):219–228. DOI: 10.1680/emr.13.00033
  14. Song G. Control of biodegradation of biocompatable magnesium alloys. Corros Sci 2007;49:1696–1701. DOI: 10.1016/j.corsci.2007.01.001
  15. Sankara Narayanan TSN, Park IS, Lee MH. Surface Modification of Magnesium and its Alloys for Biomedical Applications. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing 433–441. DOI: 10.1016/C2013-0-16448-3
  16. Kannan S, Madhu K, Nallaiyan R. Formulation of magnesium conversion coating with herbal extracts for biomedical applications. J Bio Tribo Corros 2022;8(4). DOI: 10.1007/s40735-022-00715-8
  17. Zhang W, Shen Y, Pan H, et al. Effects of strontium in modified biomaterials. Acta Biomaterialia 2011;7:800–808. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.08.031
  18. Cheshmedzhieva D, Ilieva S, Permyakov EA, et al. Ca2+/Sr2+ selectivity in calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR): implications for strontium's anti-osteoporosis effect. Biomolecules 2021;11:1576. DOI: 10.3390/biom11111576
  19. Yang L, Zhou J, Yu K. Surface modified small intestinal submucosa membrane manipulates sequential immunomodulation coupled with enhanced angio- and osteogenesis towards ameliorative guided bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2021;119:111641. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111641
  20. Kavitha RJ, Ravichandran K, TSN SN. Deposition of strontium phosphate coatings on magnesium by hydrothermal treatment: characteristics, corrosion resistance and bioactivity. J Alloys Compd 2018;745:725–743. DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.02.200
  21. Pandian SM, Subramanian AK, Ravikumar PA, et al. Biomaterial testing in contemporary orthodontics: scope, protocol and testing apparatus. Semin Orthod 2023;29(1):101–108. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2022.12.011
  22. Rokkanen P, Böstman O, Vainionpää S. Absorbable devices in the fixation of fractures. J Trauma 1996;40:123–127. DOI: 10.1097/00005373-199603001-00027
  23. Böstman O. Economic considerations on avoiding implant removals after fracture fixation by using absorbable devices. Scand J Soc Med 1994;22:41–45. DOI: 10.1177/140349489402200107
  24. Guo R, Hou X, Zhao D, et al. Mechanical stability and biological activity of Mg-Sr co-doped bioactive glass/chitosan composite scaffolds. J Non-cryst Solids 2022;583:121481. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2022.121481
  25. Zhang J, Zhao S, Zhu Y, et al. Three-dimensional printing of strontium- containing mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater 2014;10:2269–2281. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.01.001
  26. Kalaiyarasan M, Manju Bharathi S, Rajendran N, et al. Pratibha, Synergetic effect of Fe/Ag ions incorporated HAp on AZ31 Mg alloy to improve corrosion resistance and osteogenic activity. J Alloys Compd 2023;960:170711. DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.170711.
  27. Mekayarajjananonth T, Winkler S. Contact angle measurement on dental implant biomaterials. J Oral Implantol 1999:230–236. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(1999)025<0230:CAMODI>2.3.CO;2
  28. Jaikumar RA, Karthigeyan S, Ramesh Bhat TR, et al. Analysis of surface roughness and three-dimensional scanning topography of zirconia implants before and after photofunctionalization by atomic force microscopy: an in-vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13:766–771. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_724_20
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.