journal article·2019-04

In vitro corrosion and hemocompatibility evaluation of electrical discharge treated cobalt–chromium implant

Amit Mahajan, Sarabjeet Singh Sidhu

Journal of Materials Research· Volume 34· Issue 08
Publisher page

Abstract

The current paper focuses on the issue associated with the biological response of medical grade cobalt chromium (Co–Cr) alloy treated with electrical discharge at different spark energy levels by a varying current, pulse on-time, and pause (off) time. Three types of electrodes, namely, graphite (C), tungsten (W), and copper tungsten (Cu–W) were utilized for treating Co–Cr substrates in two different dielectric media such as mineral oil and deionized water. Electrochemical potentiodynamic tests were performed to investigate the corrosion resistance of untreated and treated surfaces. Furthermore, in vitro hemocompatibility tests were executed on the superior corrosion resistance samples for scrutinizing the red blood cell lysis (human blood response). The study revealed a significant improvement in the corrosion resistivity (<80%) and biological response for the surface treated with W–Cu electrode at low pulse pause duration. X-ray diffraction verified the formation of oxides and phosphides on the treated surface that promotes the biocompatibility.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Surface Treatment and Coatings · Advanced Machining and Optimization Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (34)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.07.06010.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.07.060 ↗
2. 10.4012/dmj.2011-03910.4012/dmj.2011-039 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.03110.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.031 ↗
4. 10.1557/jmr.2018.27110.1557/jmr.2018.271 ↗
5. 2007 · 21
6. 10.1097/ID.0b013e31829a170a10.1097/ID.0b013e31829a170a ↗
7. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2011.01.12010.1016/j.apsusc.2011.01.120 ↗
8. 10.1080/10426914.2013.85221110.1080/10426914.2013.852211 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.07.00110.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.07.001 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2007.02.05510.1016/j.jallcom.2007.02.055 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.msec.2004.08.01810.1016/j.msec.2004.08.018 ↗
12. 10.1080/10667857.2017.137797110.1080/10667857.2017.1377971 ↗
13. J. Mater. Sci. · 2007 · 18 · 725
14. 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.11.02210.1016/j.actbio.2017.11.022 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.00510.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.005 ↗
16. 10.1557/JMR.2001.022010.1557/JMR.2001.0220 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.tiv.2014.11.00610.1016/j.tiv.2014.11.006 ↗
18. 10.1557/jmr.2018.17410.1557/jmr.2018.174 ↗
19. 10.1510/icvts.2006.14639910.1510/icvts.2006.146399 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.01610.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.016 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.actamat.2010.01.05310.1016/j.actamat.2010.01.053 ↗
22. Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs · 2015 · 29 · 245
23. 10.1084/jem.42.4.56510.1084/jem.42.4.565 ↗
24. 1987 · 1324
25. 10.1016/0010-938X(95)80004-210.1016/0010-938X(95)80004-2 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.08.00710.1016/j.apsusc.2017.08.007 ↗
27. 10.1080/10667857.2018.147514410.1080/10667857.2018.1475144 ↗
28. 10.1016/0257-8972(87)90200-310.1016/0257-8972(87)90200-3 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.05.04210.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.05.042 ↗
30. 10.1080/10426914.2016.119801810.1080/10426914.2016.1198018 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.04.20410.1016/j.apsusc.2014.04.204 ↗
32. 10.22190/FUME180824033B10.22190/FUME180824033B ↗
33. 10.1080/10426914.2016.115104310.1080/10426914.2016.1151043 ↗
34. 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00791.x10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00791.x ↗