Assessment of the Use of Hybrid Film With Titanium Deposition on AISI 316‐L Stainless Steel Substrate as a Biomaterial
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT Metals play a fundamental role in medicine, particularly in the replacement, stabilization, and reinforcement of human body structures, due to their excellent mechanical performance. However, the biocompatibility of these materials is a critical factor, as they must not induce adverse reactions or pathologies when in contact with bodily fluids, which could lead to implant rejection by the host organism. Among the widely used metals, AISI 316‐L stainless steel (SS) stands out for its mechanical properties and lower cost but presents limitations related to corrosion in biological environments, leading to the release of nickel and chromium ions, which are harmful to the human body. A promising alternative to mitigate these effects is the use of biocompatible coatings. In this context, the present study aimed to develop and characterize different hybrid films on AISI 316‐L SS substrates for medical applications. The coatings were based on the alkoxide precursors 3‐(trimethoxysilylpropyl)methacrylate (MAP) and tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS), applied via dip‐coating and followed by titanium thin film deposition through magnetron sputtering. The results indicated good interaction between the hybrid layer, the titanium thin film, and the substrate. The HF sample, composed of only one silane‐based layer, exhibited the lowest surface roughness (16.7 ± 0.6 nm Ra) compared with pure AISI SS (27.3 ± 1 nm Ra), which positively influenced the contact angle, achieving a value of (69.1° ± 0.3°), promoting cell adhesion and osseointegration—key factors for the clinical success of implants. Surfaces coated with titanium for 10 and 20 min (HF_Ti10 and HF_Ti20) on AISI 316‐L SS demonstrated contact angles similar to SS (83.4° ± 0.4°), indicating a hydrophilic behavior. Additionally, no cytotoxicity was observed in the coated samples compared with the control group after 14 days in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assays, and HF_Ti10 presented the lowest cytotoxicity. Adherent stem cells were found in all experimental groups. These findings suggest that pre‐treatment with silane‐based HF, followed by titanium thin film deposition, holds great potential for application in AISI 316‐L SS materials in the medical field, contributing to the development of safe and effective implants.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Titanium Alloys Microstructure and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Laboratório de Corrosão, Proteção e Reciclagem de Materiais (LACOR/PPGE3M) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) Porto Alegre (RS) Brazil
Programa de Pós‐Graduação em Engenharia de Processos e Tecnologias (PGEPROTEC) Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS) Caxias do Sul (RS) Brazil
Laboratório de Hematologia e Células‐Tronco, Faculdade de Farmácia UFRGS Porto Alegre (RS) Brazil
Instituto de Pesquisa Com Células‐Tronco (IPCT) Porto Alegre (RS) Brazil
References (60)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/jbm.a.3693010.1002/jbm.a.36930 ↗
2. 10.1089/ten.teb.2020.025310.1089/ten.teb.2020.0253 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.02010.1016/j.dental.2024.07.020 ↗
4. 10.1002/adhm.20230213210.1002/adhm.202302132 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.rinma.2025.10067610.1016/j.rinma.2025.100676 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.08.22110.1016/j.apsusc.2017.08.221 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.03.08110.1016/j.apsusc.2017.03.081 ↗
8. Investigation on Corrosion Behaviour of HAp Coating on Biomaterial
9. Improving Corrosion and Wear Resistance of 316L Stainless Steel via In Situ Pure Ti and Ti6Al4V Coatings: Tribocorrosion and Electrochemical Analysis
10. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.06.13110.1016/j.ceramint.2024.06.131 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.cis.2023.10305410.1016/j.cis.2023.103054 ↗
12. 10.1155/2024/556804710.1155/2024/5568047 ↗
13. 10.3390/polym1602028410.3390/polym16020284 ↗
14. 10.1039/D4MA00941J10.1039/D4MA00941J ↗
15. 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2016.01.01910.1016/j.porgcoat.2016.01.019 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2025.11456110.1016/j.colsurfb.2025.114561 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.12706610.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.127066 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2024.13144310.1016/j.surfcoat.2024.131443 ↗
19. 10.1088/1748-605X/ad6dc410.1088/1748-605X/ad6dc4 ↗
20. ASTM International · 2019
21. 10.1007/s11998-017-0035-210.1007/s11998-017-0035-2 ↗
22. 10.1002/app.4547010.1002/app.45470 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.05.01010.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.05.010 ↗
24. Magnetoelastic Biosensors: Corrosion Protection of an FeNiMoB Alloy From Alkoxide Precursors
25. 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2012.01.00110.1016/j.porgcoat.2012.01.001 ↗
26. Influência do Tempo de Hidrólise na Obtenção de Película Híbrida Com Adição de Íons Cério Para a Proteção de Aços Galvanizados
27. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.01710.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.017 ↗
28. 10.1590/1980-5373-mr-2018-051410.1590/1980-5373-mr-2018-0514 ↗
29. 10.1007/s11665-021-05879-x10.1007/s11665-021-05879-x ↗
30. 10.21577/0103‐5053.2019007910.21577/0103‐5053.20190079 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.05.06810.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.05.068 ↗
32. Roman D. · 2020
33. 10.3390/futurepharmacol404004610.3390/futurepharmacol4040046 ↗
34. 10.1007/s12035-018-1127-410.1007/s12035-018-1127-4 ↗
35. Evaluation of the Chemical Composition of a Copaiba Oil (Copaifera spp.) and Its Effect on Mesenchymal Stem Cells
36. 10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.05610.1016/j.msec.2017.03.056 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e3554110.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35541 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2025.13197310.1016/j.surfcoat.2025.131973 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.optmat.2024.11583810.1016/j.optmat.2024.115838 ↗
40. 10.3390/ma1507266110.3390/ma15072661 ↗
41. 10.1155/2023/399728110.1155/2023/3997281 ↗
42. 10.3390/ijms2513741610.3390/ijms25137416 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.msec.2019.10988310.1016/j.msec.2019.109883 ↗
44. 10.3390/jfb1406032110.3390/jfb14060321 ↗
45. 10.1089/ten.tea.2020.036910.1089/ten.tea.2020.0369 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.14563610.1016/j.apsusc.2020.145636 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.05.20710.1016/j.jmrt.2024.05.207 ↗
48. Comparative Toxicological In Vitro and in Ovo Screening of Different Orthodontic Implants Currently Used in Dentistry
49. 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.21303310.1016/j.bioadv.2022.213033 ↗
50. 10.1155/2015/17194510.1155/2015/171945 ↗
51. Biomedical Implant Alloy
52. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.10414510.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104145 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.nano.2015.12.38510.1016/j.nano.2015.12.385 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.11.00710.1016/j.jpor.2014.11.007 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2023.13094710.1016/j.colsurfa.2023.130947 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.10142210.1016/j.mtbio.2024.101422 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.matlet.2025.13844310.1016/j.matlet.2025.138443 ↗
58. 10.1097/00008505-199605000-0000210.1097/00008505-199605000-00002 ↗
59. 10.1080/21691401.2017.141786610.1080/21691401.2017.1417866 ↗
60. 10.1002/jbm.82029031410.1002/jbm.820290314 ↗