Some patients may need to go through some specified medical procedures. These include tissue regeneration, restoring the function of organs and orthopaedic implantation. An implant is a bio-medical device used to replace damaged, defective or broken body parts. It can be natural or synthetic. Implants work closely with the living systems that include artificial bones, stents, tissues or even organs. Advancements in science, technology and medicine rely on ongoing research in the field of bio-implants. In this study a detailed review is presented in the field of materials employed for bio-medical applications. The review primarily focuses on implants in orthopaedics applications. This review covers various manufacturing techniques used for fabrication of implants. In addition, it covers various surface modification techniques used to achieve required surface properties necessary for bio-implant applications. A large number of materials are being used for these applications. However, magnesium and its alloys can be the promising material for bio-implants. These are lightweight and have low density which is close to that of the human bone. In addition, these are biodegradable and can break down naturally in the body. This review primarily focuses on orthopaedic bio-implants; material selection, manufacturing techniques and the methods used to modify their surfaces.
SudhakarKVWangJ. Fatigue behavior of vitallium-2000 plus alloy for orthopedic applications. J Mater Eng Perform2011; 20: 1023–1027.
2.
RadhaRSreekanthD. Insight of magnesium alloys and composites for orthopedic implant applications – a review. J Magn Alloys2017; 5: 286–312.
3.
ParidaPBeheraAChandra MishraS. Classification of biomaterials used in medicine. Int J Adv Appl Sci2012; 1: 125–129.
4.
LiXChuCLLiuL, et al.Biodegradable poly-lactic acid based-composite reinforced unidirectionally with high-strength magnesium alloy wires. Biomaterials2015; 49: 135–144.
5.
NiinomiMNakaiM. Ti-based biomedical alloys. Novel Struct Metal Inorgan Mater2019: 61–76.
6.
GoodmanSBYaoZKeeneyM,et al.The future of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials2013; 34: 3174–3183.
7.
StaigerMPPietakAMHuadmaiJ,et al.Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review. Biomaterials2006; 27: 1728–1734.
8.
DavisJ. Handbook of materials for medical devices. USA: ASM International, 2003.
9.
HelenaNCBenjaminMW. Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. J Biol Eng2015; 9: 1728.
10.
NietoHBaroanC. Limits of internal fixation in long-bone fracture. Orthopaedics Traumatol Surgery Res2017; 103: S61–S66.
11.
ChandraGPandeyAPandeyS. Design of a biodegradable plate for femoral shaft fracture fixation. Medical Eng Phys2020; 81: 86–96.
12.
HeY, et al.Fabrication of a bio-instructive scaffold conferred with a favorable microenvironment allowing for superior implant osseointegration and accelerated in situ vascularized bone regeneration via type H vessel formation. Bioactive Mater2022; 9: 491–507.
13.
AvilaJDAlrawahiZBoseS,et al.Additively manufactured Ti6Al4V-Si-hydroxyapatite composites for articulating surfaces of load-bearing implants. Additive Manufact2020; 34: 101241.
14.
SinghGSharmaNKumarD,et al.Design, development and tribological characterization of Ti–6Al–4V/hydroxyapatite composite for bio-implant applications. Mater Chem Phys2020; 243: 122662.
15.
ChenYHChenWYLinYS, et al.In-vitro and in-vivo bio-corrosion and biocompatibility responses of bioactive TiTaNb films with various Ta contents on Ti6Al4V implants. J Mater Res Technol2023; 25: 3803–3818.
16.
TiwariSKMishraTGunjanMK, et al.Development and characterization of sol–gel silica–alumina composite coatings on AISI 316L for implant applications. Surf Coat Technol2007; 201: 7582–7588.
17.
KatunarMRDiazFBoccacciniAR,et al.Sio2–CaO rod-like particles in chitosan matrix as bioactive coatings for stainless steel implants. Ceram Int2023; 49: 38535–38543.
18.
GeantǎVVoiculescuIStefǎnoiuR,et al.Obtaining and characterization of biocompatible Co-Cr as cast alloys. Key Eng Mater2014; 583: 16–21.
19.
ManamNSHarunWSWShriDNA, et al.Study of corrosion in biocompatible metals for implants: a review. J Alloys Compd2017; 701: 698–715.
20.
GopiDBhalajiPRRamyaS,et al.Evaluation of biodegradability of surface treated AZ91 magnesium alloy in SBF solution. J Ind Eng Chem2015; 23: 218–227.
21.
TangHGaoY. Preparation and characterization of hydroxyapatite containing coating on AZ31 magnesium alloy by micro-arc oxidation. J Alloys Compd2016; 688: 699–708.
22.
GongMYangXLiZ, et al.Surface engineering of pure magnesium in medical implant applications. Heliyon2024; 10: e31703.
23.
LeiMKLiPYangHG,et al.Wear and corrosion resistance of Al ion implanted AZ31 magnesium alloy. Surf Coat Technol2007; 201: 5182–5185.
24.
RadhaRSreekanthD. Mechanical, in vitro corrosion and bioactivity performance of Mg based composite for orthopedic implant applications: influence of Sn and HA addition. Biomed Eng Adv2022; 3: 100033.
25.
ZhangYnYangHlJuaimAN, et al.Biocompatibility and osteogenic activity of Zr−30Ta and Zr−25Ta−5Ti sintered alloys for dental and orthopedic implants. Transact Nonferrous Metals Soc China2023; 33: 851–864.
26.
AckerlNBorkAHHauertR, et al.Rationally designed ultra-short pulsed laser patterning of zirconia-based ceramics tailored for the bone-implant interface. Appl Surf Sci2021; 545: 149020.
27.
AdamopoulouE. Poly(butylene succinate): a promising biopolymer. 137. 2012.
28.
MészárosLTatárBTothK, et al.Novel, injection molded all-polyethylene composites for potential biomedical implant applications. J Mater Res Technol2022; 17: 743–755.
29.
ChenWYangJKongH, et al.Fatigue behaviour and biocompatibility of additively manufactured bioactive tantalum graded lattice structures for load-bearing orthopaedic applications. Mater Sci Eng: C2021; 130: 112461.
30.
AdetunlaAFide-AkwuobiABenjaminH, et al.A study of degradable orthopedic implant: an insight in magnesium metal matrix composites. Heliyon2022; 8: e10503.
31.
Singh AroraGRaoUSKumar SaxenaK. Critical review of Mg matrix composite for bio-implants through powder metallurgy. Mater Today Proc2022; 57: 902–907.
32.
SongG. Control of biodegradation of biocompatable magnesium alloys. Corros Sci2007; 49: 1696–1701.
33.
NelsonKKellyCNGallK. Effect of stress state on the mechanical behavior of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds produced by laser powder bed fusion. Mater Sci Eng B2022; 286: 116013.
34.
SinghGSainiAPablaBS. In-vitro mineralization of bio-coated 3D printed metallic implant under simulated body conditions. Mater Today Proc2022; 50: 1946–1952.
35.
SunilBRDumpalaR. Magnesium-based composites for degradable implant applications. Encyclopedia Mater Composites2021; 2: 770–780.
36.
ButtMSBaiJWanX, et al.Mg alloy rod reinforced biodegradable poly-lactic acid composite for load bearing bone replacement. Surf Coat Technol2017; 309: 471–479.
37.
TangJWuZYaoX, et al.From bio-inertness to osseointegration and antibacterial activity: a one-step micro-arc oxidation approach for multifunctional Ti implants fabricated by additive manufacturing. Mater Des2022; 221: 110962.
38.
LeeULYunSLeeH, et al.Osseointegration of 3D-printed titanium implants with surface and structure modifications. Dent Mater2022; 38: 1648–1660.
39.
AgarwalSCurtinJDuffyB,et al.Biodegradable magnesium alloys for orthopaedic applications: a review on corrosion, biocompatibility and surface modifications. Mater Sci Eng C2016; 68: 948–963.
40.
DwivediSRai DixitAKumar DasA. Wetting behavior of selective laser melted (SLM) bio-medical grade stainless steel 316L. Mater Today Proc2022; 56: 46–50.
41.
PerumalGGrewalHSAroraHS. Enhanced durability, bio-activity and corrosion resistance of stainless steel through severe surface deformation. Colloids Surf B2020; 194: 111197.
42.
RezaeiAGolenjiRBAlipourF, et al.Hydroxyapatite/hydroxyapatite-magnesium double-layer coatings as potential candidates for surface modification of 316 LVM stainless steel implants. Ceram Int2020; 46: 25374–25381.
43.
HeXLiYZouD, et al.An overview of magnesium-based implants in orthopaedics and a prospect of its application in spine fusion. Bioactive Materials2024; 39: 456–478.
44.
MayHAlper KatiYGumussuyuG, et al.Bioabsorbable magnesium screw versus conventional titanium screw fixation for medial malleolar fractures. J Orthop Traumatol2020; 21: 9.
45.
YaoLAl-BishariAMShenJ, et al.Osseointegration and anti-infection of dental implant under osteoporotic conditions promoted by gallium oxide nano-layer coated titanium dioxide nanotube arrays. Ceram Int2023; 49: 22961–22969.
46.
Siti Nur HazwaniMRLimLXLockmanZ,et al.Fabrication of titanium-based alloys with bioactive surface oxide layer as biomedical implants: opportunity and challenges. Trans Nonferrous Metal Soc China2022; 32: 1–44.
47.
GomesCCMoreiraLMSantosVJSV, et al.Assessment of the genetic risks of a metallic alloy used in medical implants. Genet Mol Biol2011; 34: 116–121.
48.
RaganyaMLMoshokoaNMObadeleB, et al.The microstructural and mechanical characterization of the β-type Ti-11.1Mo-10.8Nb alloy for biomedical applications. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng2019; 655: 012025.
49.
XiangDTanXSuiX, et al.Comparative study on microstructure, bio-tribological behavior and cytocompatibility of Cr-doped amorphous carbon films for Co–Cr–Mo artificial lumbar disc. Tribol Int2021; 155: 106760.
50.
MelentievRKangCShenG,et al.Study on surface roughness generated by micro-blasting on Co-Cr-Mo bio-implant. Wear2019; 428–429: 111–126.
51.
Mohammad MoradiSZangenehSVardakS,et al.New Co-Cr-Mo-Nb-Cu alloy for implant applications: properties characterization. J Alloys Compd2022; 925: 166387.
52.
FellahMHezilNBourasD, et al.Structural, mechanical and tribological performance of a nano structured biomaterial Co–Cr–Mo alloy synthesized via mechanical alloying. J Mater Res Technol2023; 25: 2152–2165.
53.
GessnerBDSteckTWoelberE,et al.A systematic review of systemic cobaltism after wear or corrosion of chrome-cobalt hip implants. J Patient Saf2019; 15: 97–104.
54.
DelaunayCPetitILearmonthID, et al.Metal-on-metal bearings total hip arthroplasty: the cobalt and chromium ions release concern. Orthop Traumatol: Surg Res2010; 96: 894–904.
55.
RieuJGœuriotP. Ceramic composites for biomedical applications. Clin Mater1993; 12: 211–217.
56.
LiMCokicSVan MeerbeekB, et al.Novel zirconia ceramics for dental implant materials. J Mater Sci Technol2025; 210: 97–108.
57.
WuYLiuPFengC, et al.3D printing calcium phosphate ceramics with high osteoinductivity through pore architecture optimization. Acta Biomater2024; 185: 111–125.
58.
WuYCaoQWangY, et al.Optimized fabrication of DLP-based 3D printing calcium phosphate ceramics with high-precision and low-defect to induce calvarial defect regeneration. Mater Des2023; 233: 112230.
59.
AlzahraniJSEcheweozoEOAlrowailiZA, et al.Influence of Fe2O3 on synthesis, structure, hardness, and radiation shielding properties of Apatite–Wollastonite (AW) glass ceramics for bone implantation and shielding applications. Ceram Int2024; 50: 32884–32892.
60.
ZhangYLawnB. Long-term strength of ceramics for biomedical applications. J Biomed Mater Res – Part B Appl Biomater2004; 69: 166–172.
61.
MohammedMKAlahmariAAlkhalefahH,et al.Evaluation of zirconia ceramics fabricated through DLP 3d printing process for dental applications. Heliyon2024; 10: e36725.
62.
WangBYuWFuL. Bioactive porous ZrO2-based ceramics with a hierarchical porosity for artificial bone scaffolds. Ceram Int2023; 49: 13752–13761.
63.
WangCWangYBaoZ, et al.Characterization of microstructure and mechanical properties of titanium-based bioactive ceramics laser-deposited on titanium alloy. Ceram Int2022; 48: 28678–28691.
64.
KrishnanRPandiarajSMuthusamyS, et al.Biodegradable magnesium metal matrix composites for biomedical implants: synthesis, mechanical performance, and corrosion behavior – a review. J Mater Res Technol2022; 20: 650–670.
65.
KhaliliVSengstockCKalchevY, et al.Exploring MgO/HA ceramic nano-composites for biodegradable implants: exploring biological properties and micromechanics. Surf Coat Technol2022; 445: 128730.
66.
KumarD. Bio-mechanical characterization of Mg-composite implant developed by spark plasma sintering technique. Mater Today Proc2022; 50: 546–551.
67.
Eddy Jai PoinernGBrundavanamSFawcettD. Biomedical magnesium alloys: a review of material properties, surface modifications and potential as a biodegradable orthopaedic implant. Am J Biomed Eng2013; 2: 218–240.
68.
BîrcăACNeacşuIAVasileOR, et al.Mg–Zn alloys, most suitable for biomedical applications. Rom J Morphol Embryol2018; 59: 49–54.
LettJASagadevanSPaimanS, et al.Exploring the thumbprints of Ag-hydroxyapatite composite as a surface coating bone material for the implants. J Mater Res Technol2020; 9: 12824–12833.
71.
ShellyMRaghavendraMPrabhuA, et al.Improved mechanical and microstructural performance of high-density polyethylene–chitosan–hydroxyapatite composites as potential bone implant materials. Mater Today Sustain2022; 19: 100186.
72.
SikderPFerreiraJAFakhrabadiEA, et al.Bioactive amorphous magnesium phosphate-polyetheretherketone composite filaments for 3D printing. Dent Mater2020; 36: 865–883.
73.
RangappaHMGapsariFSiengchinS, et al.Effect of bio-fibers and inorganic fillers reinforcement on mechanical and thermal characteristics on carbon-kevlar-basalt-innegra fiber bio/ synthetic epoxy hybrid composites. J Mater Res Technol2023; 23: 5440–5458.
74.
ChengJYangPChenQ, et al.Bio-corrosion behaviors and bio-compatibilities of TiNbZrTa and TiNbZrTaMo high entropy alloys. J Mater Res Technol2024; 32: 2268–2278.
75.
GueyeMAmmar-MerahSNowakS, et al.Study of the stability under in vitro physiological conditions of surface silanized equimolar HfNbTaTiZr high-entropy alloy: a first step toward bio-implant applications. Surf Coat Technol2020; 385: 125374.
76.
HusseinMAKumarAMAzeemMA, et al.Development of Ti-Zr-Nb-Ta-Ag high entropy alloy for dental implants: in vitro corrosion behavior, antibacterial effect, and surface characteristics. Mater Chem Phys2025; 329: 130114.
77.
RajabiMDehghaniKShahmirH. Development of a novel Ti35Nb25Zr15Mo15V10 high-entropy alloy for metallic biomaterials. Phys B: Cond Matter2024; 691: 416283.
78.
KumarPJainNKJaiswalS,et al.Development of Ti–Ta–Nb–Mo–Zr high entropy alloy by μ-plasma arc additive manufacturing process for knee implant applications and its biocompatibility evaluation. J Mater Res Technol2023; 22: 541–555.
79.
LiXLiuXWuS, et al.Design of magnesium alloys with controllable degradation for biomedical implants: from bulk to surface. Acta Biomater2016; 45: 2–30.
80.
WangWJiaGWangQ, et al.The in vitro and in vivo biological effects and osteogenic activity of novel biodegradable porous Mg alloy scaffolds. Mater Des2020; 189: 108514.
81.
KumarKDasAPrasadSB. Recent developments in biodegradable magnesium matrix composites for orthopaedic applications: a review based on biodegradability, mechanical and biocompatibility perspective. Mater Today Proc2021; 44: 2038–2042.
KumarKGillRSBatraU. Challenges and opportunities for biodegradable magnesium alloy implants. Mater Technol2018; 33: 153–172.
84.
SezerNEvisZKayhanSM, et al.Review of magnesium-based biomaterials and their applications. J Magn Alloys2018; 6: 23–43.
85.
Mena-MorcilloEVelevaL. Degradation of AZ31 and AZ91 magnesium alloys in different physiological media: effect of surface layer stability on electrochemical behaviour. J Magn Alloys2020; 8: 667–675.
86.
MajumdarJDBhattacharyyaUBiswasA,et al.Studies on thermal oxidation of Mg-alloy (AZ91) for improving corrosion and wear resistance. Surf Coat Technol2008; 202: 3638–3642.
87.
PardoAMerinoMCCoyAE, et al.Corrosion behaviour of magnesium/aluminium alloys in 3.5 wt.% NaCl. Corros Sci2008; 50: 823–834.
88.
WitteFKaeseVHaferkampH, et al.In vivo corrosion of four magnesium alloys and the associated bone response. Biomaterials2005; 26: 3557–3563.
89.
JingPPGongYLXiangY, et al.Biocompatibility study of Fe-doped zirconia-toughened alumina ceramic for artificial joints. Ceram Int2024; 50: 20108–20117.
90.
RoualdesODuclosMEGutknechtD, et al.In vitro and in vivo evaluation of an alumina–zirconia composite for arthroplasty applications. Biomaterials2010; 31: 2043–2054.
91.
YangXWangQZhangY, et al.A dual-functional PEEK implant coating for anti-bacterial and accelerated osseointegration. Colloids Surf B2023; 224: 113196.
92.
ZhangCHayashiKIshikawaK. Osseointegration enhancement by controlling dispersion state of carbonate apatite in polylactic acid implant. Colloids Surf B2023; 232: 113588.
93.
WangHHaoZWenS. Do biodegradable magnesium alloy intramedullary interlocking nails prematurely lose fixation stability in the treatment of tibial fracture? A numerical simulation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 65: 117–126.
94.
LiYWangWYuF, et al.Characterization and cytocompatibility of hierarchical porous TiO2 coatings incorporated with calcium and strontium by one-step micro-arc oxidation. Mater Sci Eng: C2020; 109: 110610.
95.
MetwallySStachewiczU. Surface potential and charges impact on cell responses on biomaterials interfaces for medical applications. Mater Sci Eng: C2019; 104: 109883.
96.
ZareidoostAYousefpourMGhasemiB,et al.The relationship of surface roughness and cell response of chemical surface modification of titanium. J Mater Sci: Mater Med2012; 23: 1479–1488.
97.
AbbasiNHamletSLoveRM,et al.Porous scaffolds for bone regeneration. J Sci: Adv Mater Devices2020; 5: 1–9.
98.
MukashevaFAdilovaLDyussenbinovA, et al.Optimizing scaffold pore size for tissue engineering: insights across various tissue types. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2024; 12.
99.
ChengMQWahafuTJiangGF, et al.A novel open-porous magnesium scaffold with controllable microstructures and properties for bone regeneration. Sci Rep2016; 6.
100.
ArimaYIwataH. Effect of wettability and surface functional groups on protein adsorption and cell adhesion using well-defined mixed self-assembled monolayers. Biomaterials2007; 28: 3074–3082.
101.
HomaKZakrzewskiWDobrzyńskiW, et al.Surface functionalization of titanium-based implants with a nanohydroxyapatite layer and its impact on osteoblasts: a systematic review. J Function Biomater2024; 15: 45.
102.
WangGLiJLvK, et al.Surface thermal oxidation on titanium implants to enhance osteogenic activity and in vivo osseointegration. Sci Rep2016; 6.
103.
WangHLinNNouriM, et al.Improvement in surface performance of stainless steel by nitride and carbon-based coatings prepared via physical vapor deposition for marine application. J Mater Res Technol2023; 27: 6021–6046.
104.
KarabulutGBeköz ÜllenNAkyüzE,et al.Surface modification of 316L stainless steel with multifunctional locust gum/polyethylene glycol-silver nanoparticles using different coating methods. Prog Org Coat2023; 174: 107291.
105.
SultanaNNishinaYNizamiMZI. Surface modifications of medical grade stainless steel. Coatings2024; 14: 248.
106.
GurelSNazarahariACanadincD, et al.From corrosion behavior to radiation response: a comprehensive biocompatibility assessment of a CoCrMo medium entropy alloy for utility in orthopedic and dental implants. Intermetallics2022; 149: 107680.
107.
CollinsSJ. Varied storage conditions on the cytotoxic potential of cobalt chrome nanoparticles when cultured with L929 fibroblasts. Biosci Horizons2012; 5: hzs006.
108.
FuWLiuSJiaoJ, et al.Wear resistance and biocompatibility of Co-Cr dental alloys fabricated with CAST and SLM techniques. Materials (Basel)2022; 15: 3263.
109.
GuoYJiaSQiaoL, et al.Enhanced corrosion resistance and biocompatibility of polydopamine/dicalcium phosphate dihydrate/collagen composite coating on magnesium alloy for orthopedic applications. J Alloys Compd2020; 817: 152782.
110.
ZhuYLiuWNgaiT. Polymer coatings on magnesium-based implants for orthopedic applications. J Polym Sci A2022; 60: 32–51.
111.
SarianMNIqbalNSotoudehbaghaP, et al.Potential bioactive coating system for high-performance absorbable magnesium bone implants. Bioactive Mater2022; 12: 42–63.
112.
Mohamed JalaludeenARamakrishnanRSundari GunasekaranS, et al.Advancements in hydroxyapatite synthesis and surface modifications for emerging biomedical applications. Inorg Chem Commun2024; 170: 113414.
113.
MolaeiMFattah-alhosseiniANouriM, et al.Enhancing cytocompatibility, antibacterial activity and corrosion resistance of PEO coatings on titanium using incorporated ZrO2 nanoparticles. Surf Interf2022; 30: 101967.
114.
Molinar-DíazJParsonsAJAhmedI, et al.Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) biomaterials and composites: challenges, progress, and opportunities. Polym Rev2024; 65: 1–39.
115.
ChandraGPandeyA. Preparation strategies for Mg-alloys for biodegradable orthopaedic implants and other biomedical applications: a review. IRBM2022; 43: 229–249.
116.
MarkopoulosAPGalanisNIKarkalosNE,et al.Precision CNC machining of femoral component of knee implant: a case study. Machines2018; 6: 10.
117.
GalanisNIManolakosDE. Surface roughness of manufactured femoral heads with high speed turning. Int J Mach Mach Mater2009; 5: 371–382.
118.
OrtorpAJemtTBäckT,et al.Comparisons of precision of fit between cast and CNC-milled titanium implant frameworks for the edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont2003; 16: 194–200.
119.
SzwajkaKZielińska-SzwajkaJTrzepiecińskiT. Improving the surface integrity of 316L steel in the context of bioimplant applications. Materials (Basel)2023; 16: 3460.
120.
ZhangWWangXHuY,et al.Quantitative studies of machining-induced microstructure alteration and plastic deformation in AISI 316 stainless steel using EBSD. J Mater Eng Perform2018; 27: 434–446.
121.
LinTWangXJinL, et al.Manufacturing of porous magnesium scaffolds for bone tissue engineering by 3D gel-printing. Mater Des2021; 209: 109948.
122.
ZhangQZhouJZhiP, et al.3D printing method for bone tissue engineering scaffold. Med Novel Technol Dev2023; 17: 100205.
123.
GolafshanNVorndranEZaharievskiS, et al.Tough magnesium phosphate-based 3D-printed implants induce bone regeneration in an equine defect model. Biomaterials2020; 261: 120302.
124.
ZhangCLiZZhangJ, et al.Additive manufacturing of magnesium matrix composites: comprehensive review of recent progress and research perspectives. J Magn Alloys2023; 11: 425–461.
125.
Chandra KandpalBJohriNKumarL, et al.Stir casting technology for magnesium-based metal matrix composites for bio-implants – a review. Mater Today Proc2022; 62: 4519–4525.
126.
SundaramJRajkumarCBalajiD, et al.Fabrication and microstructural characterization of MgO composites for biomedical applications using the bottom pour stir casting process. Mater Today Proc2023; 72: 2289–2293.
127.
RamanathanAKrishnanPKMuralirajaR. A review on the production of metal matrix composites through stir casting – Furnace design, properties, challenges, and research opportunities. J Manuf Process2019; 42: 213–245.
128.
ZuH, et al.Comparison of modified injection molding and conventional machining in biodegradable behavior of perforated cannulated magnesium hip stents. J Mater Sci Technol2021; 63: 145–160.
129.
SchaperJGWolffMWieseB, et al.Powder metal injection moulding and heat treatment of AZ81 Mg alloy. J Mater Process Technol2019; 267: 241–246.
130.
ButtMSBaiJWanX, et al.Mechanical and degradation properties of biodegradable Mg strengthened poly-lactic acid composite through plastic injection molding. Mater Sci Eng: C2017; 70: 141–147.
131.
KunduSThakurL. An investigation on the fabrication and characterization of friction stir processed nano-HAp reinforced AZ91D magnesium matrix surface composite for bio-implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2023; 143: 105918.
132.
PrakashCSinghS. On the characterization of functionally graded biomaterial primed through a novel plaster mold casting process. Mater Sci Eng: C2020; 110: 110654.
133.
BourellDKruthJPLeuM, et al.Materials for additive manufacturing. CIRP Ann2017; 66: 659–681.
134.
KainerKU. Metal matrix composites: custom-made materials for automotive and aerospace engineering. In: Metal matrix composites: custom-made materials for automotive and aerospace engineering. India: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2006, pp.1–314.
135.
GermanRM. Powder metallurgy and particulate materials processing. In: A psicanalise dos contos de fadas. Tradução Arlene Caetano. Princeton: Metal Powder Industry, 2013, p.466.
136.
GusievaKDaviesCHJScullyJR,et al.Corrosion of magnesium alloys: the role of alloying. Int Mater Rev2015; 60: 169–194.
137.
LiLZhangMLiY, et al.Corrosion and biocompatibility improvement of magnesium-based alloys as bone implant materials: a review. Regen Biomater2017; 4: 129–137.
138.
WangJTangJZhangP, et al.Surface modification of magnesium alloys developed for bioabsorbable orthopedic implants: a general review. J Biomed Mater Res – Part B Appl Biomater2012; 100 B: 1691–1701.
139.
LiuCRenZXuY, et al.Biodegradable magnesium alloys developed as bone repair materials: a review. Scanning2018; 2018: 9216314.
140.
Gray-MunroJESeguinCStrongM. Influence of surface modification on the in vitro corrosion rate of magnesium alloy AZ31. J Biomed Mater Res – Part A2009; 91: 221–230.
HuangXZhouKYeQ, et al.Crevice corrosion behaviors of CoCrMo alloy and stainless steel 316L artificial joint materials in physiological saline. Corros Sci2022; 197: 110075.
143.
OgbonnaOSAkinlabiSAMashininiPM, et al.Experimental investigation of biocompatibility in laser metal deposited titanium-molybdenum composite. 1–8.
144.
LiZGuXLouS,et al.The development of binary Mg-Ca alloys for use as biodegradable materials within bone. Biomaterials2008; 29: 1329–1344.
145.
ZhangSZhangXZhaoC, et al.Research on an Mg-Zn alloy as a degradable biomaterial. Acta Biomater2010; 6: 626–640.
146.
LiYWenCMushaharyD, et al.Mg-Zr-Sr alloys as biodegradable implant materials. Acta Biomater2012; 8: 3177–3188.
147.
ZhaoTHuYHeB, et al.Effect of manganese on microstructure and properties of Mg-2Gd magnesium alloy. Mater Sci Eng A2019; 765: 138292.
148.
BorcianiGCiapettiGVitale-BrovaroneC,et al.Strontium functionalization of biomaterials for bone tissue engineering purposes: a biological point of view. Materials (Basel)2022; 15: 1724.
149.
WuQHuLYanR, et al.Strontium-incorporated bioceramic scaffolds for enhanced osteoporosis bone regeneration. Bone Res2022; 10: 55.
150.
AssadianMIdrisMHTaheriMM, et al.Effects of alkaline treatment on corrosion behavior of biodegradable magnesium. Adv Mat Res2015; 1125: 441–444.
151.
MuñozMTorresBMohedanoM, et al.PLA deposition on surface treated magnesium alloy: adhesion, toughness and corrosion behaviour. Surf Coat Technol2020; 388: 125593.
152.
BansalGGautamRKMisraJP,et al.Synthesis and characterization of poly (methyl methacrylate)/silver-doped hydroxyapatite dip coating on Ti6Al4V. Colloids Surf, A: Physicochem Eng Aspects2024; 689: 133662.
153.
LiXZhitomirskyI. Deposition of poly(methyl methacrylate) and composites containing bioceramics and bioglass by dip coating using isopropanol-water co-solvent. Prog Org Coat2020; 148: 105883.
154.
RojaeeRFathiMRaeissiK. Controlling the degradation rate of AZ91 magnesium alloy via sol–gel derived nanostructured hydroxyapatite coating. Mater Sci Eng: C2013; 33: 3817–3825.
155.
SinghSKumarAKambojM, et al.Scratch resistance and in-vitro biocompatibility of plasma-sprayed baghdadite coatings reinforced with carbon nanotubes. Surf Coat Technol2024; 481: 130670.
156.
AnandNPalK. Evaluation of biodegradable Zn–1Mg–1Mn and Zn–1Mg–1Mn-1HA composites with a polymer-ceramics coating of PLA/HA/TiO2 for orthopaedic applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2022; 136: 105470.
157.
SanieiHMousaviS. Surface modification of PLA 3D-printed implants by electrospinning with enhanced bioactivity and cell affinity. Polymer2020; 196: 122467.
158.
WangMJChaoSCYenSK. Electrolytic calcium phosphate/zirconia composite coating on AZ91D magnesium alloy for enhancing corrosion resistance and bioactivity. Corros Sci2016; 104: 47–60.
159.
AzeemMAKumarAMAbdelaalAF,et al.Processing, mechanical, corrosion, and wear behavior of ZnO-reinforced Mg and Mg–Zr matrix composites for bioimplant applications. Mater Chem Phys2024; 314: 128884.
160.
WilliamsDF. Biocompatibility pathways and mechanisms for bioactive materials: the bioactivity zone. Bioactive Mater2022; 10: 306–322.
161.
TallawiMRoselliniEBarbaniN, et al.Strategies for the chemical and biological functionalization of scaffolds for cardiac tissue engineering: a review. J R Soc Interface2015; 12: 20150254.
162.
ArcosDVallet-RegíM. Substituted hydroxyapatite coatings of bone implants. J Mater Chem B2020; 8: 1781–1800.
163.
GarridoBDostaSCanoIG. Bioactive glass coatings obtained by thermal spray: current status and future challenges. Bol Soc Esp Cerám Vidr2022; 61: 516–530.
164.
HickokNJShapiroIM. Immobilized antibiotics to prevent orthopaedic implant infections. Adv Drug Delivery Rev2012; 64: 1165–1176.
165.
HaoZWangMChengL, et al.Synergistic antibacterial mechanism of silver-copper bimetallic nanoparticles. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1337543.
166.
FadzilAFbAPramanikABasakAK, et al.Role of surface quality on biocompatibility of implants – a review. Annal 3D Print Med2022; 8: 100082.
167.
HashmiAWMaliHSMeenaA, et al.A comprehensive review on surface post-treatments for freeform surfaces of bio-implants. J Mater Res Technol2023; 23: 4866–4908.
168.
OmarovSNauryzNTalamonaD,et al.Surface modification techniques for metallic biomedical alloys: a concise review. Metals (Basel)2023; 13: 82.
169.
AnselmeK. Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials. Biomaterials2000; 21: 667–681.
170.
HungJPBaiYWHungCQ,et al.Biomechanical performance of the cemented hip stem with different surface finish. Appl Sci2019; 9: 4082.
171.
LebeaLNgwangwaHMDesaiD,et al.Experimental investigation into the effect of surface roughness and mechanical properties of 3D-printed titanium Ti-64 ELI after heat treatment. Int J Mechan Mater Eng2021; 16: 2021.
172.
GangSFengzhouFChengweiK. Tribological performance of bioimplants: a comprehensive review. Nanotechnol Precis Eng2018; 1: 107–122.
173.
MatsuuraTKomatsuKChengJ, et al.Beyond microroughness: novel approaches to navigate osteoblast activity on implant surfaces. Int J Implant Dentistry2024; 10: 35.
174.
El HassaninAQuarembaGSammartinoP, et al.Effect of implant surface roughness and macro- and micro-structural composition on wear and metal particles released. Materials (Basel)2021; 14: 6800.
175.
HebbarGD’MelloGPaiPS. Surface roughness optimization in machining of biodegradable magnesium alloys. Mater Today Proc2018; 5: 11787–11793.
176.
JinSYuYZhangT, et al.Surface modification strategies to reinforce the soft tissue seal at transmucosal region of dental implants. Bioactive Mater2024; 42: 404–432.
177.
BarfeieAWilsonJReesJ. Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration. Br Dent J2015; 218: E9.
178.
GrewalNSSharmaGKKumarK,et al.Thermally and mechanically tuned interfaces of magnesium alloys for bioimplant applications. Surf Interfaces2023; 41: 103284.
179.
BagehornSWehrJMaierHJ. Application of mechanical surface finishing processes for roughness reduction and fatigue improvement of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V parts. Int J Fatigue2017; 102: 135–142.
180.
NegahbanAShamsiMSedighiM. In vitro corrosion behavior of magnesium/2.5%HA biocomposites under different shot peening parameters. Mater Chem Phys2025; 334: 130493.
181.
OzdemirZOzdemirABasimGB. Application of chemical mechanical polishing process on titanium based implants. Mater Sci Eng: C2016; 68: 383–396.
182.
HanWFangF. Fundamental aspects and recent developments in electropolishing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf2019; 139: 1–23.
GnilitskyiIDolgovLTammA, et al.Enhanced osteointegration and osteogenesis of osteoblast cells by laser-induced surface modification of Ti implants. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med2024; 62: 102785.
185.
MadapanaDBatheRMannaI,et al.Laser surface structuring of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) for improved tribocorrosion resistance for bio-implant applications. Tribol Int2024; 197: 109711.
186.
LiPZhouTZhangM, et al.Surface texture fabricated by ultrafast laser treatment for manipulating wettability and cell adhesion performance of Ti6Al4V. Surf Coat Technol2024; 489: 131103.
187.
PraveenkumarKVishnuJRaheemA, et al.In-vitro fretting tribocorrosion and biocompatibility aspects of laser shock peened Ti-6Al-4V surfaces. Appl Surf Sci2024; 665: 160334.
188.
EdwardsPRamuluM. Fatigue performance evaluation of selective laser melted Ti-6Al-4V. Mater Sci Eng A2014; 598: 327–337.
189.
PriyankaCPSudeepUKeerthi KrishnanK,et al.Surface characterisation and in vitro osteogenic and bacterial adhesion assays of laser treated and hydroxyapatite coated Ti6Al4V bioimplant surfaces. Mater Today Commun2024; 39: 108802.
190.
SugavaneswaranMJebarajAVKumarMDB, et al.Enhancement of surface characteristics of direct metal laser sintered stainless steel 316L by shot peening. Surf Interf2018; 12: 31–40.
191.
Günay-BulutsuzABerrakÖYepremHA, et al.Biological responses of ultrafine grained pure titanium and their sand blasted surfaces. Mater Sci Eng: C2018; 91: 382–388.
192.
AhmadiSMKumarRBorisovEV, et al.From microstructural design to surface engineering: a tailored approach for improving fatigue life of additively manufactured meta-biomaterials. Acta Biomater2019; 83: 153–166.
193.
Lopez-RuizPGarcia-BlancoMBVaraG, et al.Obtaining tailored surface characteristics by combining shot peening and electropolishing on 316L stainless steel. Appl Surf Sci2019; 492: 1–7.
194.
HuangHLChangYYTsaiMT, et al.Laser texturing and oxidation of TiZrTa thin films to improve the biocompatible performance of titanium alloys. Surf Coat Technol2024; 482: 130734.
195.
PriyankaCPKeerthi KrishnanKSudeepU,et al.Osteogenic and antibacterial properties of TiN-Ag coated Ti-6Al-4V bioimplants with polished and laser textured surface topography. Surf Coat Technol2023; 474: 130058.
196.
RosaVSilikasNYuB, et al.Guidance on the assessment of biocompatibility of biomaterials: Fundamentals and testing considerations. Dent Mater2024; 40: 1773–1785.
197.
KomeriRKasojuNAnil KumarPR. In vitro cytotoxicity and cytocompatibility assays for biomaterial testing under regulatory platform. Biomed Product Mater Eval: Stand Ethics2022: 329–353.
198.
DubeyNEllepolaKDecroixFED, et al.Graphene onto medical grade titanium: an atom-thick multimodal coating that promotes osteoblast maturation and inhibits biofilm formation from distinct species. Nanotoxicology2018; 12: 274–289.
