Submit manuscript...
eISSN: 2574-9927

Material Science & Engineering International Journal

Review Article Volume 2 Issue 1

A snapshot of remarkable potential of mg–based materials as implants

Manoj Gupta

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Correspondence: Manoj Gupta, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Received: November 21, 2017 | Published: February 21, 2018

Citation: Gupta M. A snapshot of remarkable potential of mg-based materials as implants. Material Sci & Eng Int J. 2018;2(1):30-33. DOI: 10.15406/mseij.2018.02.00030

Download PDF

Abstract

Magnesium is one of the most required nutritional metallic elements required by human body for multiple health benefits. Its non-toxicity makes it a potential non-permanent implant material in human body. However, magnesium is also one of the most susceptible elements to wet corrosion. Its reaction with simulated bio fluids leads to localized increase in magnesium ions, pH, formation of hydrogen bubbles and formation of Ca-P layer. In view of corrosion susceptibility and its effects on the neighboring environment, the potential of Mg-based materials as implants is presented in brevity keeping the interest of a broad spectrum of researchers in mind.

Introduction

Metallic materials are commonly used as permanent and non-permanent implants in human body for more than a century.1,2 This stems from their ability to exhibit good strength, ductility and fracture toughness which holistically remain beyond the capabilities of polymers and ceramics. For permanent implant applications such as knee and hip replacements, we need the materials to be inert means targeting the ones with minimum or extremely low corrosion rates and high wear resistance. Moreover, the corrosion products have to be non-toxic and the metal ions/debris that is generated should also lead to appropriate host response. Titanium and steels are commonly used as implant materials for such purposes. Titanium is more stable in body but is expensive while steels are cheaper but remains comparatively more reactive when compared to titanium. Co-Cr alloys were also attempted but led to adverse host response and acute toxicity and are being currently avoided by research community.3–5 A list of commonly used metallic materials as implants is shown in Table 1.6

Material

Application

Form

Comments

Steels

Fixation Devices

Pins, screws, plates, wires and rods

Advantages: Affordability, availability, low cost, biocompatibility.

Disadvantages: Can create stress-shielding effects. It can show toxicity effects after long-term use.

Co-Cr alloys7–21

Permanent Implants such as Knee and Hip joint replacement

Ball and socket joints

Implant loosening reported due to high levels of Co and Cr in serum. Inflammatory response near implant. Carcinogenic.

Titanium/alloys

Permanent implants in orthopedic and dental applications

Nails, screws, nuts and plates

Advantages: Corrosion resistance and biocompatibility.

Disadvantages: Expensive and can create stress shielding effect. In long term use, Al and V can reach out and are linked to Alzheimer and neuropathy.13,14

Ni-Ti Alloys

Orthopedic applications

Elastic modulus is similar to bone and exhibit good ductility and fatigue resistance. Toxicity of Ni is leading to its elimination.

Ta/alloys

Orthopedic applications

Hip and Knee replacements

Used in porous form with good response in early bone development.15

Table 1 Most common metallic implants used in human body

Potential of magnesium

Magnesium is the lightest and one of the most abundant metallic materials with a density (1.74g/cc) and elastic modulus (40-45GPa) closest to bone.1,16 This translates to almost no stress shielding effect. The compressive and tensile strengths of magnesium and its alloys can easily be tailored to exceed that of bone and its ductility in both compression and tension remains higher than bone making it a mechanically suitable material for implant applications. Human body needs about 250-400mg of magnesium per day as magnesium is the fourth most prevalent ion in human body and assists in bone health, multiple metabolic processes in body and exhibit antibacterial properties against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus.17 As magnesium is biocompatible and biodegradable, its use as non-permanent biodegradable implant in human body ensures:

  1. No revision surgery.
  2. Reduced patient trauma.
  3. Reduced medical cost.
  4. Reduced doctor’s time.

Moreover, excess magnesium can easily be excreted through urine thus preventing any side effects that may arise due to excess magnesium.

Corrosion of magnesium

As magnesium is currently targeted as biodegradable implant, it is important to understand its corrosion behavior as the degradation of magnesium-based implants has to be controlled and tuned with the bone healing time such as in orthopedic applications. Moreover, an understanding of the impact of dissolution on the surrounding tissues has to be clear. The corrosion of magnesium in aqueous medium can be expressed as:

Anodic Reaction: MgM g 2+ + 2 e MathType@MTEF@5@5@+= feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq=Jc9 vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0=yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr=x fr=xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaqcLbsaqaaaaa aaaaWdbiaad2eacaWGNbGaeyOKH4QaamytaiaadEgajuaGpaWaaWba aSqabeaajugWa8qacaaIYaGaey4kaScaaKqzGeGaey4kaSIaaeiiai aaikdacaWGLbqcfa4damaaCaaaleqabaqcLbmapeGaeyOeI0caaaaa @4663@

Cathodic Reaction: 2 H 2 O + 2 e 2O H +  H 2 MathType@MTEF@5@5@+= feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq=Jc9 vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0=yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr=x fr=xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaqcLbsaqaaaaa aaaaWdbiaaikdacaWGibqcfa4damaaBaaaleaajugWa8qacaaIYaaa l8aabeaajugib8qacaWGpbGaaeiiaiabgUcaRiaabccacaaIYaGaam yzaKqba+aadaahaaWcbeqaaKqzadWdbiabgkHiTaaajugib8aacqGH sgIRpeGaaGOmaiaad+eacaWGibqcfa4damaaCaaaleqabaqcLbmape GaeyOeI0caaKqzGeGaey4kaSIaaeiiaiaadIeajuaGpaWaaSbaaSqa aKqzadWdbiaaikdaaSWdaeqaaaaa@50EC@

Investigating these equations reveal that following will happen locally as a result of corrosion of magnesium implant in the body:

  1. Increase in Mg ion concentration.
  2. Increase in pH.
  3. H2 bubble Formation.
  4. Formation of Ca-P layer.

The effects of each of these events are described in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Beneficial effects of corrosion of magnesium in bio-applications.

The positive effects of magnesium ion concentration are described in.18,19 The positive effects of pH increase are reported in.20 The benefits of hydrogen formation are indicated in.21 Finally, the Ca-P layer that is formed on magnesium implant and its positive effects are reported in reference 18 based on in vivo studies. Overall, it can be seen that magnesium corrosion in human body is beneficial provided its rate can be controlled to avoid undue surges. More study is also required to establish the upper limit of pH that can be tolerated by human tissues. A list of metallic ions in the body is presented in Table 2. The information indicates that magnesium and iron are two possible choices as implant materials which are a significant part of human body systems. Trace elements can be used as alloying elements only and not as main elements as they can lead to toxicity as observed in the case of Co-Cr implants.

Element

% of body

Functional significance

Calcium

1.2

A building block of bones and teeth; its ionic form is
essential in muscle contraction, impulse conduction in
nerves, and blood clotting. It cannot be used as the
main material for implant fabrication.

Potassium

0.4

Necessary for conduction of nerve impulses and muscle
contraction. It cannot be used as the main material for
implant fabrication.

Sodium

0.2

Assists in muscle contraction and nerve cell transmission.
It cannot be used as the main material for
implant fabrication.

Magnesium

0.1

Found in bone and assists in many metabolic functions.
Its mechanical properties can be matched more
closely to the bone.

Iron

0.1

Basic building block of the haemoglobin molecule
which is a major transporter of oxygen in body.
It is used as an implant material. Can cause
stress shielding effect and is very heavy
compared to bone.

The following elements are trace elements and are required in very minute amounts.
They are important elements and found as part of enzymes or are required for enzyme activation.

Chromium

Promotes glucose metabolism; helps regulate blood
sugar.

Cobalt

Promotes normal red-blood cell formation.

Copper

Promotes normal red-blood cell formation. Acts as a catalyst
in storage and release of iron to form hemoglobin.
Promotes connective tissue formation and central
nervous system function.

Manganese

Promotes normal growth and development. Promotes
cell function. Helps many body enzymes generate
energy.

Molybedenum

Promotes normal growth and development and cell function.

Selenium

Complements Vitamin E to act as an efficient anti-oxidant.

Vanadium

Plays role in metabolism of bones and teeth.

Zinc

Maintains normal taste and smell. Aids in wound healing.
Helps to synthesize DNA and RNA.

Table 2 Elements that can be used as main metallic implant or as an alloying element in metallic implants in the human body

Magnesium based compositional systems that have been investigated in recent past for bio-applications are listed in Table 3.1 More details on these systems can be found from.1 The alloys/composites shown in Table 3 exhibit different properties and corrosion rates. Accordingly, they can be used as implants depending on healing time required by body to heal an injury which is not a constant and depends on the age of individual and type of fracture. For example, while certain fractures can heal in 3 weeks in young kids, it may take 6 weeks to heal in teens. In addition, based on the type of bone fractured (e.g. tibia or phalanges) the average healing time may vary from 3-12 weeks.22 The required lifetime thus has to be based on worst case scenario which is about 12 weeks. In yet another research finding, researchers in Kobe University, Japan developed Mg-based surgical clips that can be exit the body in about a year. Monitoring was done for about 12 weeks suggesting yet again that typical healing period is benchmarked at 12 weeks for most the cases.23

Mg-Sr

Mg-Zn-Sr

Mg-Ca

Mg-Zn-Ca

Mg-Mn

Mg-Zn-Mn

Mg-Ca-Zn

Mg-Nd

Mg-Zr

Mg-Zr-Sr

ZK30*

Mg-Y

Mg-Zn

Mg-Si

ZK40*

Mg-Gd

Mg-Nd-Zn-Zr

Mg-Y-Zn

ZK60*

Mg-Y-Er-Zn

Mg-Mn-Ca-Zn

Mg-Y-Zn-Zr

WE43*

Mg-Ag

Mg-In

Mg-Ti-GNP+

Mg-HAP+

Mg-TiO2+

Mg- ZrO2+

Mg-ZnO+

Mg-TiC+

Mg-TiN+

Mg- TiB2+

Mg-CNT+

Mg-Al2O3+

Mg-Ti+

Table 3 Magnesium Based monolithic and composite formulations investigated for bio-applications
*Commercially available alloys.
+ Composite materials.

In-Vivo Vs in-Vitro studies

In-vitro and in-vivo studies correspond to the studies conducted outside and inside body environment. In-vitro studies are less expensive and are used to qualify/shortlist the potential materials for implant applications. In-vivo studies are conducted in humans or animals and at times challenges the research ethics. However, as long as the intention of researchers is to bring comfort and to improve the quality of life of patients the rule utilitarian and duty ethics are satisfied. Researchers are always attempting to correlate in-vitro results with in-vivo results so as to speed up the qualification time of implants. It may be noted that as the complexity of living system cannot be duplicated in in-vitro studies, not all the time the results can be correlated. Targeting magnesium, the fundamental differences in in-vitro and in-vivo studies are indicated in Table 4.24

In-Vitro studies

In-Vivo studies

No formation of H2 gas pockets.

Formation of H2 gas pockets trapped by local tissues.

Cell adhesion indicates biocompatibility.

Biocompatibility is more dynamic and depends on Ca-P layer formed, increase in local pH and rate of H2 evolution.

Biological response can be indicated but not accurately predicted.

Biological response depends on the function and nature of implant.

Only one corrosion rate in one medium/condition.

Corrosion rate can change with the location of implant.23

Table 4 In-vitro vs in-vivo studies

Besides the differences in the two types of studies, some research work also showed similar outcome of the two types of studies.25 For example, researchers reported the ability of Ca-P layer generated on magnesium implant to promote tissue growth during biodegradation in both in-vitro and in-vivo.26,27 In yet another study, investigators indicated that in-vitro tests can be translated to in-vivo behavior provided a proper test bed is created and due considerations are given to simulate the actual conditions and function of implant in the body.28

Unknowns and challenges

The main challenge faced by researchers in their pursuit to use magnesium based implants is to control their corrosion/degradation rate within the human body. This requires a well planned in-vitro testing followed by in-vivo testing. The main variables in-vivo that may have complex interactions and can significantly affect the corrosion rate is:28

  1. Location of implant.
  2. Stress levels on implant.

For example, stresses can trigger stress corrosion cracking and corrosion fatigue and if they are not targeted in in-vitro testing than the results of in-vitro testing will be misleading. Additionally, there are still unknowns in the use of larger implants in animals/humans in terms of how much pH rise and increase in magnesium ion concentrations locally can be tolerated by the surrounding tissues. Further research is warranted in this area.

Conclusion

Magnesium based materials have emerged as potential biomaterials and both animal and human studies have been conducted successfully on patented/protected compositions. Choice of magnesium based materials as biomaterials is still limited for materials selectors and its portfolio needs significant enhancement to go from smaller implants (pins, clips and screws) to larger implants (such as plates) and as scaffolds. The key challenge is to control the degradation rate at different levels depending on the function of implant and its required lifetime in human body. Further, it has to be ensured by material scientists that the inherent composition of the implant does not release ions or corrosion products that can create local or systemic toxicity. As the magnesium based implants avoids the revision surgery and comes with related benefits, advancement in this area has the potential to create a multi-billion dollar market with noble cause of alleviating human discomfort.

Acknowledgements

None.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gupta M, Meenashsundaram GK. Insight into Designing Biocompatible Magnesium Alloys and Composites. Springer Briefs in Materials. 2015.
  2. Gérrard Eddy Jai Poinern, Sridevi Brundavanam, Derek Fawcett. Biomedical Magnesium Alloys:A Review of Material Properties, Surface Modifications and Potential as a Biodegradable Orthopaedic Implant. American Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 2012;2(6):218–240.
  3. Lhotka C, Szekeres T, Steffan I, et al. Four–year study of cobalt and chromium blood levels in patients managed with two different metal–on–metal total hip replacements. Journal of Orthopedic Research. 2003;21(2):189–195.
  4. Dearnly PA. A brief review of test methodologies for surface–engineered biomedical implant alloys. Surface and Coatings Technology. 2005;198(1–3):483–490.
  5. Haynes DR, Boyle SJ, Rogers SD, et al. Vernon–Robert, Variation in cytokines induced by patients from different prosthetic materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;352:323–230.
  6. Mantripragada VP, Lecka–Czernik B, Ebraheim NA, et al. An overview of recent advances in designing orthopedic and craniofacial implants. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101(11):3349–3364.
  7. Anwar HA, Hart AJ, Visuvanathan S, et al. The effects of the heavy metals from total hip replacement wear debris on bacterial growth? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:300.
  8. Hosman AH, Mei HC, Bulstra SK, et al. Influence of Co–Cr particles and Co–Cr ions on the growth of staphylococcal biofilms. Int J Artif Organs. 2011;34(9):759–765.
  9. Lhotka C, Szekes T, Stefan I. Four years study of cobalt and chromium blood levels in patients managed with two different metal–on–metal total hip replacement. J of Orthopedic Res. 2003;21:189–195.
  10. Keegan GM, Leatmonth ID, Case CP. A systemic comparison of the actual potential and theoretical health effects of cobalt and chromium exposures from industry and surgical implants. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008;38(8):645–674.
  11. McAfolaranmi GA, Tettey J, Meek RMD, et al. Release of chromium from orthopedic anthroplasties. The Open Ortho J. 2008;2:10–18.
  12. Polyzois I, Nikolopoulos D, Michos I, et al. Local and systemic toxicity of nanoscale debris particles in total hip anthroplasty. J Appl Toxicol. 2012;32(4):255–269.
  13. Perl DP, Brody AR. Alzheimer’s disease:X–ray spectrometer evidence of aluminum accumulation in neurofibrillary tangle–bearing neurons. Science. 1980;208(4441):297–299.
  14. Japan Aluminium Association. Aluminum and health. Japan: Japan Aluminium Association; 2002. p. 1–6.
  15. Levine BR, Sporer S, Poggie RA, et al. Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials. 2006;27(27):4671–4681.
  16. Manoj Gupta, Nai Mui Ling Sharon. Magnesium, Magnesium Alloys and Magnesium Composites. Singapore: John Wiley; 2011. 280 p.
  17. Robinson DA, Griffith RW, Shechtman D, et al. In vivo antibacterial properties of magnesium metal against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Acta Biomaterialia. 2010;6(5):1869–1877.
  18. Witte F, Kaese V, Haferkamp H, et al. In vitro corrosion of four magnesium alloys and the associated bon response. Biomaterials. 2005;26(17):3557–3563.
  19. Zreiqat H, Howlett CR, Zannettino A, et al. Mechanisms of magnesium–stimulated adhesion of osteoblastic cells to commonly used orthopaedic implants. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;62(2):175–184.
  20. Arnett TR, Dempster DW. Effect of pH on bone resorption by rat osteoclasts in vitro. Endocrinology. 1986;119(1):119–124.
  21. Ohsawa I, Ishikawa M, Takahashi K, et al. Hydrogen acts as a threraputic antioxidant by selectively reducing cytotoxic oxygen radicals. Nature Medicine. 2007;13:688–694.
  22. Glick Y, Schubert R. Fracture Healing.
  23. A dissolvable surgical clip5 mm in size made of a magnesium alloy. 2015.
  24. What metal ions are required by the human body? Information and Science. 2015.
  25. Reifenrath J, Marten AK, Angrisani N, et al. In vitro and In vivo corrosion of Novel Magnesium Alloy Mg–La–Nd–Zr:Influence of Measurement Technique and in vivo implant location. Biomedical Materials. 2015;10(4):04502.
  26. Witte F, Kaese V, Haferkamp H, et al. In vivo corrosion of four magnesium alloys and the associated bone response. Biomaterials. 2005;26(17):3557–3563.
  27. Li L, Gao J, Wang Y. Evaluation of cyto–toxicity and corrosion behavior of alkali–heat–treated magnesium in simulated body fluid. Surface and Coatings Technology. 2004;185(1):92–98.
  28. Koo Y, Lee H, Dong Z, et al. The Effects of Static and Dynamic Loadings on Biodegradable Magnesium Pins In vitro and In vivo. Scientific Reports. 2017:7.
Creative Commons Attribution License

©2018 Gupta. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.