journal article·2026-02Open access

Biodegradable pure Mg fixation nails for guided bone regeneration membrane: In vitro and in vivo evaluation

Bo Zhang, Guanqi Liu, Jianhua Zhu, Di Peng, Guanxi Wu, Siyu Liu, Jianmin Han, Chuanbin Guo

Abstract

Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) relies on membrane nails to stabilize barrier membranes and promote osseous healing. However, conventional titanium nails need secondary removal surgeries and may impair osteogenesis. Magnesium (Mg), a biodegradable metal, offers a promising alternative due to its degradability, biocompatibility, and osteoconductive properties. However, Mg-based alloys often exhibit rapid and localized corrosion, which may result in premature failure, thus limiting its clinical applicability. Therefore, in this study, two pure Mg with varying purity—commercially pure Mg (CP-Mg, purity: 99.98 wt.%) and ultrahigh-pure Mg (UHP-Mg, purity: 99.99937 wt.%)—were employed to fabricate the membrane nails to enhance their corrosion performance. The mechanical, degradation, and biological properties of the materials were studied by mechanical tests, in vitro corrosion and cell test, and in vivo implant tests. The results demonstrate that the grain sizes of CP-Mg and UHP-Mg are 38 µm and 27 µm, respectively. Both CP-Mg and UHP-Mg membrane nails are capable of shear forces of approximately 55 N, with no significant difference observed between the two materials, fulfilling the practical requirements for clinical applications in membrane fixation. However, in vitro corrosion test reveals that the degradation rate of UHP-Mg membrane nails is significantly lower than that of CP-Mg membrane nails, with improved degradation uniformity, which may mitigate premature mechanical failure resulting from rapid localized degradation. The cellar test shows that UHP-Mg has superior biological properties. Furthermore, in vivo experiments demonstrated that UHP-Mg membrane nails exhibited a slower and more uniform degradation post-implantation, with no positional migration or detachment observed within 4 weeks, and no significant inflammatory response was induced during the experimental period. Additionally, all bone morphology indices in the degraded area were superior to those in CP-Mg membrane nails, demonstrating enhanced osteogenesis. Therefore, UHP-Mg exhibits high potential for clinical application as a barrier membrane fixation nail material. This study provides a theoretical foundation for the future clinical application of degradable Mg implant devices.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Magnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications · Titanium Alloys Microstructure and Properties

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

References (74)

Show source-provided references
1. Pellegrini · Int. J. Dent. · 2013 · 201310.1155/2013/521547 ↗
2. Urban · Int J Periodontics Restor. Dent · 2016 · 36 · 15310.11607/prd.2627 ↗
3. Wang · World J. Clin. Cases. · 2022 · 10 · 578910.12998/wjcc.v10.i17.5789 ↗
4. Mir-Mari · Clin. Oral Implants Res. · 2016 · 27 · 25810.1111/clr.12590 ↗
5. Niinomi · J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. · 2008 · 1 · 3010.1016/j.jmbbm.2007.07.001 ↗
6. Niinomi · 2015 · 179
7. Parr · J. Prosthet. Dent. · 1985 · 54 · 41010.1016/0022-3913(85)90562-1 ↗
8. Kocasarac · Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. · 2019 · 127 · 53510.1016/j.oooo.2019.01.074 ↗
9. Geibel · 2019 · 191 · 433
10. Ren · Int. J. Mol. Sci. · 2022 · 23
11. Suchenski · Arthrosc. J Arthrosc. Relat Surg · 2010 · 26 · 82110.1016/j.arthro.2009.12.026 ↗
12. Quereshy · J Oral Maxillofac. Surg · 2010 · 68 · 249710.1016/j.joms.2010.05.060 ↗
13. Raghoebar · Clin. Oral Implants Res. · 2006 · 17 · 28810.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01200.x ↗
14. Tecklenburg · Arthrosc. J Arthrosc. Relat Surg · 2006 · 22 · 99310.1016/j.arthro.2006.05.010 ↗
15. Baums · Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. · 2006 · 14 · 86510.1007/s00167-006-0049-2 ↗
16. Herber · J. Clin. Med. · 2021 · 10 · 184210.3390/jcm10091842 ↗
17. Shalomeev · J Alloys Compd. Commun. · 2024 · 3
18. Prasad · J. Magnes. Alloys · 2022 · 10 · 110.1016/j.jma.2021.05.012 ↗
19. Witte · Acta Biomater. · 2010 · 6 · 168010.1016/j.actbio.2010.02.028 ↗
20. Shalomeev · J. Alloys Compd. Commun. · 2024
21. Niranjan · J. Magnes. Alloys · 2023 · 11 · 268810.1016/j.jma.2023.08.002 ↗
22. Mao · Sci. Rep. · 2017 · 7
23. Wu · Bioact. Mater. · 2016 · 1 · 122
24. F.Z. Akbarzadeh, M. Sarraf, E.R. Ghomi, V.V. Kumar, M. Salehi, S. Ramakrishna and S. Bae, J. Magnes. Alloys, 12, 2024 , 2569–2594.10.1016/j.jma.2024.06.015 ↗
25. Narayanan · Prog. Mater. Sci. · 2014 · 60 · 110.1016/j.pmatsci.2013.08.002 ↗
26. Prasad · Mater. (Basel) · 2017 · 10 · 88410.3390/ma10080884 ↗
27. Fattah-alhosseini · J. Magnes. Alloys · 2024 · 12 · 480810.1016/j.jma.2024.11.023 ↗
28. Wang · Mater. (Basel) · 2022 · 15 · 619710.3390/ma15186197 ↗
29. Mirza · J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. · 2017 · 40 · 3010.1016/j.jtemb.2016.12.001 ↗
30. Li · Acta Biomater. · 2021 · 129 · 3310.1016/j.actbio.2021.05.014 ↗
31. Bregoli · Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. · 2024 · 62 · 326310.1007/s11517-024-03134-8 ↗
32. Tan · Appl. Sci. · 2021 · 11 · 686110.3390/app11156861 ↗
33. Xing · J. Magnes. Alloys · 2022 · 10 · 142810.1016/j.jma.2022.02.013 ↗
34. Blašković · Membr. (Basel) · 2023 · 13 · 69110.3390/met13040691 ↗
35. Chen · Corros. Rev. · 2015 · 33 · 10110.1515/corrrev-2015-0007 ↗
36. Ren · J. Alloys. Compd. · 2022 · 920
37. Kačarević · Bioact. Mater. · 2022 · 14 · 15
38. Rider · Bioact. Mater. · 2022 · 14 · 152
39. Prasadh · Met. (Basel) · 2019 · 9 · 30210.3390/met9030302 ↗
40. Antoniac · Regen. Biomater. · 2023 · 10 · rbad09510.1093/rb/rbad095 ↗
41. Yavuzyegit · ACS Appl. Bio Mater. · 2024 · 7 · 173510.1021/acsabm.3c01169 ↗
42. WANG · Acta Met. Sin · 2020 · 57 · 1
43. B.-Y. Li, Z.-Z. Shi, W.-B. Geng, Y. Yan and L.-N. Wang, Corros. Sci., 235, 2024 ,112165.10.1016/j.corsci.2024.112165 ↗
44. Cao · Corros. Sci. · 2013 · 75 · 7810.1016/j.corsci.2013.05.018 ↗
45. Fu · J. Alloys. Compd. · 2022 · 927
46. Xiang · J. Mater. Sci. Technol. · 2025 · 218 · 18010.1016/j.jmst.2024.08.024 ↗
47. Argade · Corros. Sci. · 2012 · 58 · 14510.1016/j.corsci.2012.01.021 ↗
48. Birbilis · Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. · 2010 · 45 · 22410.1179/147842209X12559428167805 ↗
49. Dwiyati · J. Manuf. Mater. Process. · 2023 · 7 · 140
50. Sanchez · Acta Biomater. · 2015 · 13 · 1610.1016/j.actbio.2014.11.048 ↗
51. Zhen · Mater. Sci. Eng.: C · 2015 · 46 · 20210.1016/j.msec.2014.08.038 ↗
52. Pallavi · Appl. Sci. · 2019 · 9 · 430410.3390/app9204304 ↗
53. Niederlaender · J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. · 2014 · 25 · 835
54. Chen · Biomaterials · 2025 · 318
55. Shu · J. Magnes. Alloys · 2024 · 12 · 329210.1016/j.jma.2023.02.002 ↗
56. Zhang · Acta Biomater. · 2024 · 185 · 8510.1016/j.actbio.2024.07.021 ↗
57. Chen · Acta Biomater. · 2023 · 157 · 68310.1016/j.actbio.2022.12.012 ↗
58. Li · J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A · 2014 · 102 · 4346
59. Qiao · Nat. Commun. · 2021 · 12 · 288510.1038/s41467-021-23005-2 ↗
60. Qi · Biol. Trace Elem. Res. · 2021 · 199 · 55910.1007/s12011-020-02183-y ↗
61. Zhang · Nat, Med · 2016 · 22 · 116010.1038/nm.4162 ↗
62. Shi · Mater. Today Bio · 2024 · 28
63. Nie · Regen. Biomater. · 2020 · 7 · 53
64. Hamushan · Bioact. Mater. · 2021 · 6 · 1563
65. Qi · Bioact. Mater. · 2024 · 33 · 14
66. Avnet · Cancer Metastasis Rev. · 2019 · 38 · 13310.1007/s10555-019-09790-9 ↗
67. Biber · Trauma Case Rep. · 2017 · 8 · 1110.1016/j.tcr.2017.01.012 ↗
68. Lee · Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. · 2016 · 113 · 71610.1073/pnas.1518238113 ↗
69. Kim · Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. · 2018 · 19 · 32410.1080/14686996.2018.1451717 ↗
70. Walker · Biomed. Mater. · 2013 · 910.1088/1748-6041/9/1/015006 ↗
71. Li · Acta Biomater. · 2022 · 141 · 45410.1016/j.actbio.2021.12.032 ↗
72. Virtanen · Mater. Sci. Eng.: B · 2011 · 176 · 160010.1016/j.mseb.2011.05.028 ↗
73. Huang · Biomaterials · 2020 · 23810.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.119829 ↗
74. Johnston · J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B: Appl. Biomater. · 2018 · 106 · 190710.1002/jbm.b.34004 ↗