Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr 21;9(5):e15671.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15671. eCollection 2023 May.

FeMn and FeMnAg biodegradable alloys: An in vitro and in vivo investigation

Luke Saliba  1   2 , Keith Sammut  1   2 , Christabelle Tonna  3 , Foteini Pavli  4 , Vasilis Valdramidis  4 , Ray Gatt  1 , Ryan Giordmaina  1 , Liberato Camilleri  5 , William Atanasio  6 , Joseph Buhagiar  3 , Pierre Schembri Wismayer  2
Affiliations

FeMn and FeMnAg biodegradable alloys: An in vitro and in vivo investigation

Luke Saliba et al. Heliyon. .

Abstract

Iron-based biodegradable metal bone graft substitutes are in their infancy but promise to fill bone defects that arise after incidents such as trauma and revision arthroplasty surgery. Before clinical use however, a better understanding of their in vivo biodegradability, potential cytotoxicity and biocompatibility is required. In addition, these implants must ideally be able to resist infection, a complication of any implant surgery. In this study there was significant in vitro cytotoxicity caused by pure Fe, FeMn, FeMn1Ag and FeMn5Ag on both human foetal osteoblast (hFOB) and mouse pre-osteoblast (MC3T3-E1) cell lines. In vivo experiments on the other hand showed no signs of ill-effect on GAERS rats with the implanted FeMn, FeMn1Ag and FeMn5Ag pins being removed largely uncorroded. All Fe-alloys showed anti-bacterial performance but most markedly so in the Ag-containing alloys, there is significant bacterial resistance in vitro.

Keywords: Bacterial resistance; Biocompatibility; Biodegradable metals; Cytotoxicity; FeMnAg; In vivo corrosion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Image 1
Graphical abstract
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
SE−SEM images of (a) Fe (b) FeMn (c) FeMn1Ag and (d) FeMn5Ag ground to P2500 and acid-treated to remove MnO.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
XRD patterns for Fe, FeMn, FeMn1Ag and FeMn5Ag as-acid treated.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Luminescence signals plotted against material over the 4 days of testing for (a) hFOB cell line on ground coupons and (b) MC3T3 cell line on pre-corroded coupons.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Low magnification SEM images of pre-corroded coupons on day 4 of testing for (a) Fe, (b) FeMn, (c) FeMn1Ag, (d) FeMn5Ag, (e) SS316LVM on day 1, and (f) SS316LVM on day 4, following testing with MC3T3 cell line.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Observed detached mean bacterial cell counts following incubation. * Indicates that the result is significantly different from FeMn controls at the 0.01 level of significance.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Haematoxylin and Eosin-stained histological specimens prepared from rat tails. (a) Shows a highlight of the vertebral body of a rat tail showing bone which has been extensively blackened by a FeMn implant, (b) shows a vertebra from a control rat with no implant where normal collagen matrix colouration for decalcified bone is appreciated and (c) shows bone surrounding an area FeMn5Ag pin was implanted.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
XRD patterns for the surfaces of FeMn, FeMn1Ag and FeMn5Ag pins following a 6-month implantation period.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
SE−SEM images of explanted (a) FeMn, (b) FeMn1Ag and (c) FeMn5Ag pins following a 6-month implantation period. Cross-sectional images of explanted (d) FeMn, (e) FeMn1Ag and (f) FeMn5Ag pins at the metal-corrosion product interface. Boxes and crosses marked with numbers 1 to 6 and 7 to 10 respectively indicate areas or spots where EDS analysis was performed. Results of the analysis are given in Table 1.
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
(a) FeMn1Ag as-acid treated prior to in vivo test and (b) labelled FeMn1Ag following explantation and EDS analysis. Maps represent Fe, Mn, C, O, Ca and P distribution corresponding to (b).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Finkemeier C.G. Bone-grafting and bone-graft substitutes. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2002;84(3):454–464. - PubMed
    1. Laurencin C., Khan Y., El-Amin S.F. Bone graft substitutes. Expet Rev. Med. Dev. 2006;3(1):49–57. - PubMed
    1. Gillman C.E., Jayasuriya A.C. FDA-approved bone grafts and bone graft substitute devices in bone regeneration. Mater. biol. Appl. 2021;130 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heiden M., Walker E., Stanciu L. Magnesium, iron and zinc alloys, the trifecta of bioresorbable orthopaedic and vascular implantation - a review. J. Biotechnol. Biomater. 2015;5:178.
    1. Li L., et al. Corrosion and biocompatibility improvement of magnesium-based alloys as bone implant materials: a review. Regen. Biomater. 2017;4(2):129–137.

LinkOut - more resources