Preparation, characterisation and biocompatibility of microarc oxidation coating on tantalum
Source abstract
Abstract
Similar to titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta) has good mechanical properties, processability and corrosion resistance, which make it a suitable material for medical implants. However, tantalum lacks biological activity and cannot induce bone tissue growth. In this study, microarc oxidation was used to prepare a silicon (Si)-containing oxide coating on the surface of tantalum. Scanning electron microscopy measurement showed that the coating had a dense inner layer and a porous surface with a good physical morphology. Energy-dispersive spectroscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analyses confirmed the presence of elemental silicon in the coating. In addition, the coating was evenly distributed on the surface and might form an amorphous phase. In vitro cell tests showed that the silicon oxide coating had no obvious cytotoxicity, could promote the stretching of actin filaments and exhibited good biological activity. The results of this study provide significant theoretical insights and may play an important role in clinical applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Orthopedics, Dafeng People’s Hospital, Yancheng, China
Department of Burns, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
References (26)
Show source-provided references
1. Ding X · Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery · 2018 · 32 · 753
2. Mohandas G · Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis · 2014 · 74 · 18810.55782/ane-2014-1984 ↗
3. 10.14245/ns.1938296.14810.14245/ns.1938296.148 ↗
4. 10.2174/18722080978938915310.2174/187220809789389153 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.08610.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.086 ↗
6. 10.1002/jbm.b.3127010.1002/jbm.b.31270 ↗
7. Li Y · Shanghai Journal of Stomatology · 2015 · 24 · 551
8. 10.1371/journal.pone.017803110.1371/journal.pone.0178031 ↗
9. 10.1007/s10856-014-5140-510.1007/s10856-014-5140-5 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.11.00310.1016/j.carbpol.2016.11.003 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.05.01110.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.05.011 ↗
12. 10.1002/jbm.b.3297810.1002/jbm.b.32978 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.11.13310.1016/j.apsusc.2015.11.133 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.09.06810.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.09.068 ↗
15. 10.1039/c3tb21521k10.1039/c3tb21521k ↗
16. Fraser D · Clinical Oral Implants Research · 2019 · 30 · 15610.1111/clr.13402 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.00710.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.04510.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.045 ↗
19. Yang B · West China Journal of Stomatology · 2019 · 37 · 124
20. Mohammadi H · Iranian Biomedical Journal · 2016 · 20 · 189
21. 10.1016/j.msec.2015.05.01210.1016/j.msec.2015.05.012 ↗
22. 10.1680/jsuin.19.0004810.1680/jsuin.19.00048 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11068210.1016/j.msec.2020.110682 ↗
24. 10.1007/s12011-012-9593-410.1007/s12011-012-9593-4 ↗
25. 10.3390/ijms1703029210.3390/ijms17030292 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jajs.2017.10.00310.1016/j.jajs.2017.10.003 ↗