Microstructural, mechanical, and wear behavior of hydroxyapatite-based composite coatings on magnesium alloy
Source abstract
Abstract
Biodegradable magnesium alloys are promising materials for temporary orthopedic implants, but their clinical performance is often compromised by poor tribological behavior. During implant insertion and post-operative micromotion, friction and fretting wear can generate debris and accelerate local material degradation, leading to premature mechanical failure. In this study, hydroxyapatite (HAp) and a ternary HAp–Al 2 O 3 –TiO 2 composite coating were deposited on Mg–1 wt% Ca alloy via electrophoretic deposition (EPD) and systematically compared to elucidate microstructure–mechanical–tribological relationships. SEM revealed a porous morphology for HAp, whereas the composite coating exhibited a denser and more uniform structure; EDS and XRD confirmed successful incorporation of Al 2 O 3 and TiO 2 into the HAp matrix. The composite coating significantly improved hardness, Young's modulus, and adhesion strength (0.39 GPa, 10.07 GPa, and 9.49 MPa) compared with HAp alone (0.23 GPa, 7.48 GPa, and 7.48 MPa). Under identical fretting conditions, the composite achieved a lower specific wear rate (1.52 × 10 −3 mm 3 /N·m) than HAp (1.74 × 10 −3 mm 3 /N·m). The novelty of this work lies in demonstrating a tribology-driven composite coating strategy for magnesium-based implants, moving beyond corrosion-focused surface modifications and directly addressing wear-related degradation relevant to in vivo mechanical loading.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Magnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Aluminum Alloys Composites Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
National Institute of Technology Jamshedpur
CSIR- National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. Lu Y, Deshmukh S, Jones I, et al. Biodegradable magnesium alloys for orthopaedic applications. Biomater Transl 2021; 2: 214.
2. 10.3390/app1401001010.3390/app14010010 ↗
3. Shan Z, Xie X, Wu X, et al. Development of degradable magnesium-based metal implants and their function in promoting bone metabolism (a review). J Orthop Transl 2022; 36: 184–193.
4. 10.3390/cryst1508067110.3390/cryst15080671 ↗
5. 10.1088/1748-6041/6/4/04500310.1088/1748-6041/6/4/045003 ↗
6. 10.3390/met809072410.3390/met8090724 ↗
7. 10.3390/jfb1512036610.3390/jfb15120366 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.10530610.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105306 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.surfin.2023.10272410.1016/j.surfin.2023.102724 ↗
10. 10.1155/2013/17575610.1155/2013/175756 ↗
11. 10.3390/coatings1502019110.3390/coatings15020191 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.12.08610.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.12.086 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2020.12641010.1016/j.surfcoat.2020.126410 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.08.02610.1016/j.jmrt.2023.08.026 ↗
15. 10.3390/ma1302026310.3390/ma13020263 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.05.11510.1016/j.apsusc.2019.05.115 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.17093410.1016/j.jallcom.2023.170934 ↗
18. Li CY, Gao L, Fan XL, et al. In vitro degradation and cytocompatibility of a low temperature in-situ grown self-healing Mg–Al LDH coating on MAO-coated magnesium alloy AZ31. Bioact Mater 2020; 5: 364–376.
19. 10.1007/s11665-023-08290-w10.1007/s11665-023-08290-w ↗
20. 10.3390/machines1212091010.3390/machines12120910 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.11.00210.1016/j.actbio.2007.11.002 ↗
22. 10.3390/coatings710015410.3390/coatings7100154 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.12915710.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.129157 ↗
24. 10.1038/s41598-022-23452-x10.1038/s41598-022-23452-x ↗
25. Rønold HJ, Lyngstadaas SP, Ellingsen JE. Analysing the optimal value for titanium implant roughness in bone attachment using a tensile test. J Mater Process Technol 2003; 143–144: 125–130.
26. Jahani B, Wang X. The effects of surface roughness on the functionality of Ti13Nb13Zr orthopedic implants. Biomed J Sci Technol Res 2021; 38: 30058–30067.
27. 10.2174/187412070150901007510.2174/1874120701509010075 ↗
28. 10.4012/dmj.2018-11810.4012/dmj.2018-118 ↗
29. 10.1111/ijac.1363810.1111/ijac.13638 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.12.13910.1016/j.ceramint.2016.12.139 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.12.05810.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.12.058 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.02.00710.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.02.007 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e0797810.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07978 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.01.07910.1016/j.ceramint.2014.01.079 ↗
35. 10.3390/ma1303050210.3390/ma13030502 ↗
36. 10.1080/02670844.2019.166114510.1080/02670844.2019.1661145 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.11194910.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.111949 ↗
38. 10.1038/s41598-025-25586-010.1038/s41598-025-25586-0 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.07.01210.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.07.012 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.12827210.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.128272 ↗
41. 10.1007/s11665-024-09871-z10.1007/s11665-024-09871-z ↗
42. 10.3390/ma1416467810.3390/ma14164678 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.10739910.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107399 ↗