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
. 2025 Apr;20(4):e70000.
doi: 10.1002/biot.70000.

Ta-Ag Coatings on TC4: A Strategy to Leverage Bioelectric Microenvironments for Enhanced Antibacterial Activity

Yuxin Gong  1   2   3   4 , Xiang Liang  1   2   3 , Le Bai  1   2   3 , Ming Yu  1   2   3 , Xin Yang  1   2   3 , Chonghao Yao  1   2   3 , Hao Cui  1   2   3 , Linyang Xie  1   2   3 , Bingheng Lu  4 , Sijia Na  1   2   3 , Guangbin Zhao  4 , Junbo Tu  1   2   3 , Fangfang Xu  1   2   3
Affiliations

Ta-Ag Coatings on TC4: A Strategy to Leverage Bioelectric Microenvironments for Enhanced Antibacterial Activity

Yuxin Gong et al. Biotechnol J. 2025 Apr.

Abstract

Dental implant-related infections are serious complications after surgery that can results in loosening or even complete loss of the implant. Although endogenous electric fields (EEF) play an integral role in the human body, current methods involving external electrical stimulation are invasive and not suitable for clinical application. In this study, we using DC magnetron sputtering, investigates the effects of tantalum-silver (Ta-Ag) coatings on titanium alloy (TC4) surfaces, focusing on their potential to influence EEF that enhances antibacterial activity In this design, Ta-Ag configuration effectively increased the surface potential difference of TC4, and furthermore, promoting Ta/Ag ions release and reducing bacterial adhesion. The study concludes that the Ta-Ag coating, particularly the TT/A implant, promotes a stable EEF, enhancing the long-term antibacterial and osteogenic properties of implants. This work provides a promising strategy for developing advanced implant materials with improved clinical efficacy.

Keywords: Ta‐Ag coating; antibacterial; charge transfer; endogenous electric fields; osteointegration.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A‐B) The SEM and BS‐SEM microphotograph of section samples; (C) Water contact angle of the samples evaluated. (D) Ta and Ag ion release concentrations on 5 days. (E‐F) Representative AFM images for the surfaces of TC4, TT‐A, TA/T and TT/A; (E) Surface roughness of TC4, TT‐A, TA/T and TT/A; (****p < 0.0001, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
(A) Living/dead staining of rBMSCs on different samples (scale bar = 200 µm). (B) Cytoskeleton staining of adhered rBMSCs on different samples (scale bar = 100 µm).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
(A) Images showing electrode tips clamped onto BMSCs. (B) The schematic and statistical graphs of RMP indicate that TT/A and TA/T exhibit significant differences compared to the control group (p < 0.01). (C,D) Changes in fluorescence intensity of membrane potential of cells inoculated on the surface of different groups.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
(A) E. coli and S. aureus (107 mL−1) were incubated in different groups for 24 h, resulting in solid cultures. (B) FE‐SEM images of S. aureus and E. coli cultured on different surfaces are shown. The arrows indicate bacteria with damaged membranes (scale bar = 5 and 1 µm, respectively).
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
(A) Establishment of implant‐related infection model. (B) Effects of bone implants on heart, liver, spleen, lungs, kidneys, and testicles using H&E staining. (C) Micro‐CT scanning of the femurs containing different implants and the reconstructed 3D images. (D–E) Effects of bone implants on BIC using VG staining. (n = 3 per group; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05) (yellow arrow is new bone; blue arrow is fibers; white arrow is the implant).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lee C. T., Huang Y. W., Zhu L., and Weltman R., “Prevalences of Peri‐Implantitis and Peri‐Implant Mucositis: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Journal of Dentistry 62 (2017): 1–12, 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.04.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hashim D., Cionca N., Combescure C., and Mombelli A., “The Diagnosis of Peri‐Implantitis: A Systematic Review on the Predictive Value of Bleeding on Probing,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 29, no. S16 (2018): 276–293, 10.1111/clr.13127. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Daubert D. M., Weinstein B. F., Bordin S., Leroux B. G., and Flemmig T. F., “Prevalence and Predictive Factors for Peri‐Implant Disease and Implant Failure: A Cross‐Sectional Analysis,” Journal of Periodontology 86, no. 3 (2015): 337–347. - PubMed
    1. Vagia P., Papalou I., Burgy A., Tenenbaum H., Huck O., and Davideau L., “Association Between Periodontitis Treatment Outcomes and Peri‐Implantitis: A Long‐Term Retrospective Cohort Study,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 32, no. 6 (2021): 721–731. - PubMed
    1. Hu C., Lang N. P., Ong M. M.‐A., Lim L. P., and Tan W. C., “Influence of Periodontal Maintenance and Periodontitis Susceptibility on Implant Success: A 5‐year Retrospective Cohort on Moderately Rough Surfaced Implants,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 31, no. 8: 727–736. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources