Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1.1 Biomaterials:
Biomaterial can be defined as "any substances (other than a drug) or combination of substances synthetic or natural in origin, which can be used for any period of time, as a whole or as a part of a system which treats, augments, or replaces any tissue, organ or function of the body.[Von Recum et. al, 1995] Commonly, any matter, surface, or construct that interacts with biological systems is termed as biomaterial. Theoretically, any material can be a biomaterial as long as it serves the stated medical and surgical purposes. Biomaterials can be synthetic or natural materials that are required or designed to function appropriately in biological environment. Materials that constitute parts of medical implants, extracorporeal devices, and disposables that have been utilized in medicine, surgery, dentistry, and veterinary medicine as well as in every aspect of patient health care.
Metallic materials continue to play an essential role as biomaterials to assist with the repair or replacement of bone tissue that has become diseased or damaged (Puleo DA et al ,1995) Metals are more suitable for load-bearing applications compared with ceramics or polymeric materials due to their combination of high mechanical strength and fracture toughness. Currently approved and commonly used metallic biomaterials include stainless steels, titanium and cobalt chromium-based alloys. A limitation of these current metallic biomaterials is the possible release of toxic metallic ions and/or particles through corrosion or wear processes that lead to inflammatory cascades which reduce biocompatibility and cause tissue loss. Moreover, the elastic moduli of current metallic biomaterials are not well matched with that of natural bone tissue, resulting in stress shielding effects that can lead to reduced stimulation of new bone growth and remodeling which decreases implant stability (Nagel j. l,2003 ) Table 1: Summary of the physical and mechanical properties of various implant materials in comparison to natural bone Properties Density(g/cm3 ) Elastic modulus(Gpa) Compressive Y.S(Mpa) Fracture Toughness(Mpam1/2) Natural Bone 1.8-2.1 3-20 130-180 3-6 Mg 1.74-2.0 41-45 65-100 15-40 Ti 4.4-4.5 110-117 758-1117 55-115 Co-Cr 8.3-9.2 230 450-1000 NA SS 7.9-8.1 189-205 170-310 50-200 Synthetic HA 3.1 73-117 600 0.7
. Fig 1.1 Example of metallic implants: dental implants and knee joint implant
1.2.1.1Stainless steels
Stainless steel used for medical implants is mainly austenitic type 316L due to its corrosion resistance along with a wide range of other physical and mechanical properties coupled with inert surfaces. The chemical composition of type 316L austenitic stainless steel where L denotes low carbon content is as follows: 0.030 % C, 1.0 % Si, 2.0 % Mn, 0.045 % P, 0.030 % S, 12.015.0 % Ni, 16.0-18.0 % Cr, and 2.0-3.0 % Mn (Ratner et. al, 2004]. The chemical composition of type 316L stainless steel was developed to obtain stable austenitic structure which has numerous advantages, namely: 1. Austenitic stainless steel has a face centered cubic structure and is characterized by very low yield strength to tensile strength ratio and high formability 2. To increase strength, cold working and successive strain aging treatment can be applied. 3. Austenitic stainless steel is superior to ferritic stainless steel in corrosion resistance because the crystallographic atomic density of the former is higher than that of the latter. 4. Austenitic stainless steel is nonmagnetic.
Drawbacks
The disadvantages of austenitic stainless steels generally are higher sensitivity toward pitting corrosion and stress corrosion cracking [Sumita et. al, 2004]. Pitting is accelerated by the existence of an oxygen concentration cell at the early growth stage. The corrosion resistance is improved by adding molybdenum, increasing nickel and reducing carbon to less than 0.030 %.This steel has less than 0.03 wt.% carbon in order to reduce the possibility of in vivo corrosion. If the carbon content of the steel significantly exceeds 0.03 %, there is a tendency for formation of carbides such as Cr23C6 which precipitate at grain boundaries. This carbide precipitation results in depletion of chromium from the grain boundary regions, which has the effect of diminishing the formation of the protective chromium-based oxide Cr2O3 [Bombac et. al, (2007]. Due to high content of chromium, 316L stainless steel forms a protective, adherent and coherent oxide film that envelops the entire outer surface. The film passive in nature serve as a barrier to corrosion processes in alloy systems that would otherwise experience very high corrosion rates [Liu C et. al, 2003] and has ability of self-healing, when damaged, as chromium in the steel reacts with oxygen and moisture in the environment to reform the protective oxide layer [Newson et. al, 2002].
the presence of an extremely thin passive oxide film that spontaneously forms on the alloy surface. Similar to AISI 316L stainless steel predominant oxide film is Cr2O3 with some minor contribution from Co and Mo oxides [Kocijan et. al, 2004].
Drawbacks
Despite their excellent corrosion resistance, there is still some concern about metal ion release from orthopedic implants into the human body environment. Implant components fabricated from Co-Cr based alloys have been reported to produce elevated Co, Cr and Ni concentrations in the surrounding tissue [Okazaki Y et. al (2005]. The use of Cobalt alloys has been limited due to the difficulty in fabrication of these alloys. Other Co alloys used in medicine are CoNiCrMo (ASTM F 562) with a nickel content of 35 % used for cardiovascular pacing leads, stylets, catheters and orthopedic cables. Increased content of nickel exhibits an improved resistance to stress-corrosion cracking in aqueous solution, but also increase the possibility of nickel allergy reactions. Therefore these alloys are not ideal for orthopedic applications. The biocompatibility of the wear particles produced can be troublesome because of the increased surface area of these small particles which are in direct contact with the surrounding medium or tissue material. In work-hardened or work-hardened and aged conditions, this alloy has very high tensile properties which are among the strongest available for implant applications. Other Co-based alloy is L-605 cobalt alloy or CoCrWNi (ASTM F 90) which is used for heart valves and in an annealed condition (ASTM F 1091) for surgical fixation wires. Its mechanical properties are approximately the same as those of Co-CrMo alloys, but after the material is cold worked the mechanical properties more than double.
(a) Fewer impurities results in fewer intermetallics, leading to the reduction of galvanic corrosion. Mg is anodic compared to the impurities; therefore the impurities are actually protected by sacrificing Mg. (b) Mg is an active metal which forms an oxide layer on the surface. Though this oxide layer is generally believed to have limited effect on the corrosion of Mg, an increased purity will reduce the number of defects in the oxide layer that might help to suppress pitting corrosion. They found that it is possible to modify corrosion kinetics by microstructural changes in the bulk or in the near surface region without any further processing( B. Denkena, et al,2007). Another tool to tailor the corrosion rate of pure Mg grains is their crystallographic orientation. Lu et al. showed experimentally that grains near (0 0 0 1) orientation are the most corrosion resistant Inoue et al., found that high purity Mg (99.9999% by weight) showed a lower corrosion rate than low purity Mg (99.9%) in a conventional chloride solution. They also concluded that in buffered chloride solution the corrosion rate does not depend on the purity of the material or on the alloying composition, but solely on the pH of the solutions (C. Opt Hoog et al,2008) Currently, controlling Mg properties for implant applications such as strength and corrosion resistance is achieved by alloying the pure metal with a variety of different elements [13,20]. This practice brings some material challenges which are summarized as the following: (1) A small amount of alloying element added to pure Mg metal increases the corrosion rate, which is well documented (X. Gu et all,2009); (2) Polycrystalline Mg and related alloys are routinely machined from cast ingots. They reveal grain boundaries, surface roughness, and structural defects, which are more vulnerable to corrosion . Lower corrosion rate is preferred because it does not affect the cell viability . The grains tend to segregate impurities along their boundaries thus amplifying the corrosion rate. The end result is enhanced evolution of hydrogen that causes local gas cavities in vivo (3) The majority of the alloying elements employed to improve the mechanical properties of Mg are toxic at high local concentrations if released from corrosion sites: Ni, Be, 110 Cu, Li, Al, Zn, Mn, Biodegradable Mg coating prepared by Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) technique with
6
controlled grain size and morphology is the one which helps us to control the corrosion rate in mg biomaterials. (M. Liu et al, 2008)
Bioactive glasses have also been used in many medical applications. However, due to their poor mechanical properties, these glasses cannot be used in load-bearing applications, where metallic alloys are still the materials of choice. One of the main applications of bioactive is as coatings on prosthetic metallic implants. The coatings serve the following two purposes: 1. Improve the osseointegration ability of the implants, 2. Act as barrier between metal and body tissues, thus protecting body from the corrosion products of the implants and protect metal from corrosion by the body fluids. However their use is limited due to their poor adhesion properties as coatings on the metallic implants. Other materials like transition metal nitrides, like TiN, ZrN, TiAlN, NbN, TaN and VN have been proven effective as coatings against wear and corrosion of surgical implants and prosthesis.
There are a variety of biocompatible polymers suitable for biomedical applications.123,124 For example, polyacrylates, poly(acrylonitrile-co-vinylchloride) and polylysine have been investigated for cell encapsulation and immunoisolation.(chen .H et al.2008)
10
Fig 1.2 Mechanism of ball milling Mechanical milling has been used to produce oxide-dispersion strengthened (ODS) nickeland iron-base superalloys for applications in the aerospace industry.
It has now been shown to be capable of synthesizing a variety of equilibrium and nonequilibrium ahoy phases starting from blended elemental or prealloyed powders. Suryanaryana et. al, 2003
11
1.6 Summary
A comparison of the properties of metals, ceramics and polymers make it obvious that the metals are sill the preferred choice for biomedical applications. Table 1.2: Comparison of properties of different materials on a relative scale Property Strength Toughness Corrosion Resistance Biocompatibility Bioactivity Resorbability Metals High High High to medium High Medium None Ceramics Medium Low Very high High High Low Polymers Low Very Low Low Low High High
With the advancement of materials technology, new processing routes with specific property treatments are now available. This has led researchers to prepare composites of metals and ceramics that combine the best properties of both types. So to the next stage of developing of biomaterials requires the materials that are bioactive, can stimulate tissue and cellular response and remain in the body for years without any adverse effects. Composites through bulk processing or through surface treatments are being developed which give optimum properties of the constituent materials and avoid all harmful effects.
2.1. Introduction
Metallic biomaterials are still the preferred choice of materials for biomedical applications.Mg preferred in current research due to its excellent bio degradable property .As a lightweight metal with mechanical properties similar to natural bone, a natural ionic presence with significant functional roles in biological systems, and in vivo degradation via corrosion in the electrolytic environment of the body, magnesium-based implants have the potential to serve as biocompatible, osteoconductive, degradable implants for load-bearing applications. incorporating either intermetallics or ceramic particulates Mg alloys are generally believed to possess relatively low yield strength and poor ductility , they can be strengthened by
reported that the mechanicalintegrity of most were maintained for 68 weeks, with complete resorption occurring in 1012 months (Troitskii et al., 1944).Results were reported by Znamenski in 1945, where magnesium alloy containing 10wt% aluminum was used to treat gunshot wounds in two young men. McBride reports on the use of screws, pegs, plates and bands prepared from magnesium aluminummanganese alloys to secure 20 fractures and bone grafts ( Staiger et al. 2006) . These early examples imply that magnesium-based materials are non-toxic and may actually stimulate bone tissue healing. However, the rate of corrosion of pure magnesium, or these simple alloys, occurs at a rate that is too rapid to allow sufficient time for healing as it is desirable to have the implanted fixture present for at least 12 weeks (Witte et al., 2005). In an effort to improve the corrosion resistance of magnesium, more complex alloying compositions may be necessary, with the addition of small levels (.o4%) of rare earth elements having the most significant effect. Stroganov et al. report that magnesium alloyed with 0.44 wt% rare earth metal, 0.051.2 wt% cadmium, 0.051.0wt% calcium or aluminum, and variable, traces (0.8%) levels of manganese, silver, zirconium or silicon had a slowed corrosion rate, with pins 3mm in diameter present for 5 months, and pins 8mm in diameter present for 11 months in vivo. No information was given as to how long the mechanical integrity of the implants survived or if the otentially toxic effects of the alloying elements were considered (Stroganov et al. 1972). More recently, in vivo degradation of magnesium-based alloys, comparing two alloys containing only aluminum and zinc, and two alloys with rare earth element combinations (Witte F et al,. 2005). The aluminum zinc alloys contained 3wt% aluminum and 1 wt% zinc (AZ31), and 9 wt% aluminum and 1 wt% zinc (AZ91). The first rare-earth alloy was composed of 4wt% yttrium and 3wt% of a rare earth metal mixture consisting of neodymium, cerium and dysprosium (WE43). The final rare-earth alloy consisted of 4wt% lithium, 4 wt% aluminum and 2wt% of a rare earth element mixture of cerium, lanthanum, neodymium and praseodymium (LAE442). The implants consisted of rods 1.5mm in diameter and 20mm in length, inserted into the femur of guinea pigs. A rod of polylactide of the same dimensions was used as a control. Radiographs were taken frequently, and implants were harvested at 6 and 18 weeks. Synchrotron- radiation-based microtomography was used to characterize the degradation of the implants, for which complete degradation was observed in 18 weeks (Witte et al., 2001). Significantly increased (P 0:05) bone area was observed in all groups with magnesium-based implants at weeks 6 and 18, in comparison
14
to the polymer control. Increased bone area to magnesium implants. Subcutaneous gas pockets were observed after 1 week, which were removed using a syringe, and were not observed after 23 weeks. Adverse effects due to the formation of subcutaneous gas were not observed. The slowest rate of corrosion was noted for LAE442, while AZ31, AZ91 and WE43 degraded at similar rates .Energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) was used to form elemental maps of the corrosion layer and new bone tissue. The rare earth elements were shown to be localized in the corrosion layer, and were not detected (Witte et al., 2005)
15
As these materials are used in the body, care must be taken to choose alloying elements that are non-toxic. For orthopedic applications, protective coatings for magnesium must be non-toxic, and aim to improve the biocompatibility/bioactivity of the implant. Simple but effective options include alkali-heat treatments, which may induce a biomimetic precipitation of calcium phosphate at the implant surface (Li et al., 2004)
Ca- Ductility improvement also grain refiner Zr-Grain Refinement RE-High temp. properties Zn-age hardening and combination of good ductility and strength Ag addition also improves the micro-hardness La addition of 1.5% (Mg7Al1Zn1CaxLa ) improves mechanical properties by grain refinement
matrix composites are cytocompatible biomaterials with adjustable mechanical and corrosive properties. The distribution and size of the HA particles are of major importance for mechanical and corrosive properties. Corrosion tests revealed that HA particles stabilised the corrosion rate and exhibited more uniform corrosion attack in artificial sea water and cell solutions (Witte et al. 2007)
hard tissue applications. Hydroxyapatite coatings or surface additions can be done successfully done on magnesium matrix as HA integrates well with the bone tissue (good osseo-integrity) and can act as surface for cell growth. Mechanical milling is simple and convenient technique which is commercially scalable to produce nano particles. Nano particles are desired for their superior mechanical and biological properties. Nature has an affinity for nano materials and human bone tissue is also made up of nano fibers. The present research work thus aims to improve the properties of magnesium based implants by forming composites of Magnesium and HA The main objectives of the present research work can be summarized as below: 1. To prepare composites of magnesium and nano-hydroxyapatite through ball milling. 2. Compacting and sintering in conventional vacuum sintering and spark plasm sintering 3. Characterizing the composite for the metallurgical properties and mechanical properties
3.1 Materials
Magnesium : Commercially available Mganesium powders purchased from Sigma Aldrich was used. The purity was 99.9% and the size <150 m. Hydroxyapatite: HA was prepared in the lab from egg shell. hydroxyapatite is of 99.5% pure, particle size <6 nm.
19
3.4 Sintering:
Sintering is carried out in Box furnace Temperature: 70010C Soaking Time: 2Hours Heating Rate: 5 C
Vickers Hardness measurement was done using micro-indenter. The the load applied was 100g for 15 seconds. Hardness was measured at 8 different points and the average calculated.
22
Fig 4.1 SEM image of as received pure magnesium powder and corresponding EDAX analysis
Electron microscope images (Fig 4.1) of the powders confirm that the starting materials purity and particle size before the processing. And also from the SEM images we found that magnesium powders has got very little oxidation also, which is unavoidable in Pure Magnesium. Images confirms that its of <150 particle size and from the bright field TEM image of the hydroxyapatite powder (Fig 4.2) shows that it is less than 100nm size.
Fig 4.2 Bright field TEM image of lab prepared nano hydroxyapatite powder
23
From the Fig 4.3, its evident that HA was not decomposed at 850C and also coarsening of HA particles observed. The fraction of crystallinity was increased after heating. Mechanical Milling of commercially available magnesium powder was done for 20 hours. The apparatus was allowed to cool for 60 minutes after every 15 minute milling cycle to avoid excessive heating.
24
The X-ray diffraction studies on powder (ball milled) and sintered samples were done with Bruker Discover D8 Diffractometer, Germany. The diffraction pattern were obtained using Cu K radiation with the scan rate of 0.15 sec per step and scan range of 20 to 80. The XRD pattern of ball milled powders of various composition of Mg-HA (Fig 4.4) showed that there is no new phase and contamination in the powders. Instead, there is a shifting of high intensity peak due to the micro strain in the milling powders. It confirms that there is no contamination due to tungsten carbide milling media,since we are not observing any W or C peaks in the pattern. Fig 4.5 shows the powders after ball milling. The powder was flattened and flakes were produced after 20h of milling.
25
26
Fig 4.6 Bright field TEM image and corresponding SAED pattern of ball milled powders a) pure Mg, b) Mg-8HA, c) Mg-10HA and d) Mg-15HA
Fig 4.7 Bright field TEM image of nano-HA powder covered on magnesium particle after 20h of ball milling
27
Fig 4.9 SEM observations of sintered pure magnesium in as received condition: a) BSE image, b) corresponding EDAX analysis within the grain and c) at the grain boundary.
Fig 4.8 shows the samples vacuum sealed in quartz tubes. Fig 4.9 shows that typical Mg powders sintering characteristics. Grain coarsening during the sintering was observed. But as expected oxidation is inevitable during the sintering process which is clearly demonstrated In the EDAX analysis in the Scanning Electron microscope. The grain was pure magnesium and the grain boundary was got oxidized.
28
Fig 4.10 SEM observations of sintered Mg-8HA composite: a) BSE image, b) corresponding magnified image, c) EDAX analysis within the grain and d) at the grain boundary.
Sintering of 20 hours ball milled Mg-8%HA powders has got sintered well and HA particles are seen along the grain boundaries of the Mg particle. And also due to the presence of the HA the Mg particle might have got oxidized. EDAX analysis shows that the major part is magnesium particle and Ca, p and few amount of oxide as well (Fig 4.10).
29
Fig 4.11 SEM observations of sintered Mg-10HA composite: a) BSE image, b) corresponding magnified image, c) EDAX analysis within the grain and d) at the grain boundary.
SEM analysis of sintered Mg-10%HA shows that particle got sintered and coarsening of the particle after the process. Mg particle might have got flattened during the milling process and HA particles got embedded over the flat and elongated Mg particles. In this composition HA particle tend to settle at the grain boundaries of the Mg particles , and during sintering they formed MgO also. EDAX results of the sintered pellet also confirm the same effect of oxidation which may from HA particle presence (Fig 4.11).
30
Fig 4.12 SEM observations of sintered Mg-15HA composite: a) BSE image, b) corresponding magnified image, c) EDAX analysis within the grain and d) at the grain boundary.
SEM images of Mg-15%HA ball milled and sintered powders showed that three different phases such as Mg,MgO,HA presence which is evident by presence of Ca,P. Due to milling and compaction process the HA particle got embedded on the grain boundary of the mg particles. During sintering process the HA particle reacted with the mg which results in formation of MgO. From the BSE images shows that clear distinct phases in the sintered part and EDAX analysis within the grain and at the grain boundary confirms the presence of MgO in the sintered part (Fig 4.12).
corresponding Mg peaks. HA peaks also observed at the respective 2 values for the presence too. Higher the composition of the HA intensity of the MgO also intensifies shows that HA may the source for the oxidation when its going to the higher temperature which is the sintering temperature of the Mg-HA composite.
hydroxyapatite. MgO peaks also shows at 2 values of 42 and 62 respectively, indicates its
Fig 4.14 Micro hardness distribution across the radius of the sintered pellets
34
35
Fig 4.19 Microhardness distribution across the radius of the sintered pellets
In the figures 4.19 & 4.20, Vickers hardness distribution in the sintered sample and average hardness of the samples are indicated. From the distribution graph, we observe that higher the concentration of HA it reduces the hardness of the sintered sample due to its ability to observe the energy which is applied in ball milling process and also due to its affects the size reduction capabilities of ball milling results in lesser hardness in higher HA content samples. In 10%HA composite has got good hardness due to the HA got into the Mg grain boundary and forms MgO which may might be the reason for higher hardness. Hardness also has got variation in over the distance due to various reasons like porosity level, go presence ,composite structure formation during ball milling.
37
38
CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium hydroxyapatite (8%,10% and 15% HA) composites were synthesized by ball milling and consolidated by conventional vacuum sintering and spark plasma sintering The ball milled powders were slightly oxidized after 30h of ball milling and the covering of nanoHA over the magnesium particles was observed in all the compositions Presence of magnesium oxide and Ca/P observed at the grain boundary of sintered compacts in both the cases suggest the oxidation of the sintered powders and the presence of HA after sintering. The microhardness studies of the samples indicate improvement in hardness for the samples compared to pure magnesium sintered in both routes As the powder deformed into fine flakes due to ball milling, the microstructure of the composites clearly shows the combination of magnesium oxide and HA at the layers like grain boundary.
39
1. The influence of secondary phase particles in controlling the biodegradation and the role of
magnesium oxide and HA on the bioactivity of the composite in physiological environment can be assessed by in-vitro bioactivity studies
2. The level of toxicity of the new developed composites on the cell viability can be found by biocompatibility studies
3. The cell attachment and growth kinetics on the composites can be investigated by doing cell adhesion studies to find the cells response to the new developed magnesium based degradable composites
40
Reference
1. Puleo DA, Huh WW. Acute toxicity of metal ions in cultures of osteogenic cells derived from bone marrow stromal cells. J Appl Biomater 1995;6:10916. 2. Nagels J, StokdijkM, Rozing PM. Stress shielding and bone resorption in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003;12:359. 3. Von Recum, A.F. and LaBerge, M., Educational Goals for Biomaterials Science and Engineering: Perspective View, Journal of Applied Biomaterials, 6 (1995) 137-144. 4. Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Suda Y, Otani T, Fujikawa K, Toyama Y, et al. Metal ions induce boneresorption cytokyne production through the redox pathway in synoviocytes and bone marrow macrophages. Biomaterials 2003;24:144757 5. M.P. Staiger, Alexis M. Pietaka,_, Jerawala Huadmaia, George Dias Biomaterials 27 (2006) 17281734 6. Ratner, B.D., Schoen, F., Hoff man, A., Lemons, J. (2004): Biomaterials Science: An Introduction toMaterials in Medicine. Elsevier Science and Technology Books 7. Sumita, M., Hanawab, T., Teoh, S.H. (2004), Development of nitrogen containing nickel-free austenitic stainless steels for metallic biomaterials- review. Materials Science and Engineering 8. Bombac, D., Brojan, M., Krkovic, M., Turk, R., Zalar, A. (2007): Characterization of titanium and stainless steel medical implants, Review of materials in medical applications Materials and geoenvironment
41
9. Liu, C., Bi, Q., Matt hews, A. (2003): Tribological and electrochemical performance of PVD TiN coatings on the femoral head of Ti-6Al-4V artificial hip joints. Surface andCoatings Technology 10. Newson, T. (2002): Stainless Steel A Family of Medical Device Materials. Business briefing: medical device manufacturing & technology 11. Davids, J.R. (1998): Metals Handbook. ASM International 12. Sergey V. Dorozhkin Biocomposites and hybrid biomaterials basedon calcium
orthophosphates Biomatter 1:1, 3-56; July/August/September 2011; 2011 Landes Bioscience 13. Doblare M, Garcia JM, Gomez MJ. Modelling bone tissue fracture and healing: a review. Eng Fract Mech 2004; 71:1809-40; 14. Vallet-Regi M. Revisiting ceramics for medical applications.Dalton Trans 2006; 5211-20 15. Wang M. Developing bioactive composite materials for tissue replacement. Biomaterials 2003; 24:2133-51; 16. Gibson RF. A review of recent research on mechanics of multifunctional composite materials and structures. Compos Struct 2010; 92:2793-810; 17. Wojciech L. Suchaneka,1, Kullaiah Byrappaa,2, Pavel Shuka,3, Richard E. Rimana,*, 18. Victor F. Janasb, Kevor S. TenHuisenb, Preparation of magnesium-substituted hydroxyapatite powders by the mechanochemicalhydrothermal method Biomaterials 25 (2004) 46474657 19. Chen H, Yuan L, Song W, Wu Z, Li D. Biocompatible polymer materials: role of proteinsurface interactions. Prog Polym Sci 2008; 20. Langer R. Biomaterials in drug delivery and tissue engineering: one laboratorys experience. Acc Chem Res 2000; 33:94-101;
42
21. Saris NEL. Magnesium: an update on physiological, clinical and analytical aspects. Clin Chim Acta 2000;294:126. 22. Okuma T. Magnesium and bone strength. Nutrition 2001;17:67980. 23. Vormann J. Magnesium: nutrition and metabolism. Mol Aspects Med 2003;24:2737.[25] 24. Lambotte A. Lutilisation du magnesium comme materiel perdu danslosteosynthe` se. Bull Me m Soc Nat Chir 1932;28:132534. 25. Troitskii VV, Tsitrin DN. The resorbing metallic alloy Osteosinthezit as material for fastening broken bone. Khirurgiia 1944;8:414. 26. Witte F, Kaese V, Haferkamp H, Switzer E, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Wirth CJ, et al. In vivo corrosion of four magnesium alloys and the associated bone response. Biomaterials 2005;26:355763. 27. Witte F, Crostack HA, Nellesen J, Beckmann F. Characterization of degradable magnesium alloys as orthopaedic implant material by synchrotron-radiation-based microtomography. 2001. 28. Stroganov GB, Savitsky E, Mikhailovich T, Nina M, Terekhova V, Fedorovna V, et al. Magnesium-base alloys for use in bone surgery.US Patent no. 3,687,135, 1972 29. Li L, Gao J, Wang Y. Evaluation of cyto-toxicity and corrosion behavior of alkali-heat-treated magnesium in simulated body fluid.SurfCoat Technol 2004;185:928. 30. Shaw BA. Corrosion resistance of magnesium alloys. In: Stephen D,editor. ASM handbook volume 13a: corrosion: fundamentals, testing and protection. UK: ASM Int.; 2003 31. Grey JE, Luan B. Protective coatings on magnesium and its alloysa critical review. J Alloys Compounds 2002;336:88113. 32. Kaesel VT, Bach PT, Haferkamp H, Witte F, Windhagen H. Approach to control the corrosion of magnesium by alloying, In: 2004. p. 5349
43
33. Banhart J. Manufacture, characterization and application of cellular metals and metal foams. Prog Mater Sci 2001;46:559632 34. Yamada Y, Shimojima K, Sakaguchi Y, Mabuchi M, Nakamura M, Ashahina T, et al. Processing of cellular magnesium materials. Adv Eng Mat 2000;2:1847. 35. L.Leu M.O. Lai , W. Liang Magnesium nanocomposite via mechanochemical milling, Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 20092014 36. Frank Witte, Frank Feyerabend, Petra Maier, Jens Fischer, Michael Stormer, Carsten Blawert, Wolfgang Dietzel, Norbert Hort , Biodegradable magnesiumhydroxyapatite metal matrix composites, Biomaterials 28 (2007) 2163217 37. Marie-Hlne Grosjean, Moussa Zidoune, Lionel Roua, ,Jacques Huot , Robert Schulz , Effect of ball milling on the corrosion resistance of magnesium in aqueous media , Electrochimica Acta 49 (2004) 24612470 38. Thamaraiselvi TV, Rajeswari S. Biological evaluation of bioceramic materialsa review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2004;19:917. 39. Gibson L, Ashby M. Cellular solids. Structure and properties. Sydney: Pergamon Press; 1988. p. 141. 40. B. Denkena, A. Lucas, Biocompatible magnesium alloys as absorbable implant materialsadjusted surface and subsurface properties by machining process , Annals of CIRP 56 (1) (2007) 113116. 41. M. Liu, D. Qui, M. Zhao, G. Song, A. Atrens, The effect of crystallographic orientation on the active corrosion of pure magnesium , Scripta Materialia 58 (5) 405 (2008) 421424. 42. X. Gu, Y. Zheng, Y. Cheng, S. Zhong, T. Xi, In vitro corrosion and biocompatibility of binary magnesium alloys , Biomaterials 30 (4) (2009) 484498. 43. C. Opt Hoog, N. Birbilis, Y. Estrin, Corrosion of pure Mg as a function of grain size and processing route , Advanced Engineering Materials 10 (6) (2008) 579582.
44