Effect of tissue fixatives on the corrosion of biomedical magnesium alloys. 2024

Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
Central laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Center for Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, NHC Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing, 100081, China.

In this work, the corrosion behavior of pure Mg, Mg3Ag, Mg6Ag, and MgZnYNd alloys in different fixatives (ethyl alcohol (EA), 85 % ethyl alcohol (85 % EA), 10 % neutral buffered formalin (10 % NBF), 4 % glutaric dialdehyde (4 % GD), and 4 % paraformaldehyde (4 % PFA)) was investigated to provide a valuable reference for the selection of fixatives during the histological evaluation of Mg implants. Through the hydrogen evolution test, pH test, and corrosion morphology and product characterization, it was found that corrosion proceeded slowest in the EA and 85 % EA groups, slightly faster in 4 % GD, faster in 10 % NBF, and fastest in 4 % PFA. After corrosion, the EA group surface remained unchanged, while the 85%EA group surface developed minor cracks and warping. The 4%GD fixative formed a dense needle-like protective layer on the Mg substrate. The 10%NBF group initially grew a uniform layer, but later developed irregular pits due to accelerated corrosion. In contrast, the 4%PFA solution caused more severe corrosion attributed to chloride ions. The main corrosion products in the EA and 85%EA groups were MgO and Mg(OH)2, while the other fixatives containing diverse ions also yielded phosphates like Mg3(PO4)2 and MgHPO4. In 4 % PFA, AgCl formed on the surface of Mg6Ag alloy after corrosion. Therefore, to minimize Mg alloy corrosion without compromising staining quality, EA or 85 % EA is recommended, while 4 % PFA is not recommended due to its significant impact.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries

Related Publications

Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
April 2022, Materials (Basel, Switzerland),
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
March 2011, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine,
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
July 2012, Acta biomaterialia,
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
January 2022, Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology,
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
September 2017, Journal of functional biomaterials,
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
January 2022, Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology,
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
December 2020, Scientific reports,
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
January 2022, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials,
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
March 2012, Acta biomaterialia,
Guanqi Liu, and Ziyu Yan, and Yuzhu Guo, and Chuanbin Guo, and Chengwen Tan, and Jianhua Zhu, and Jianmin Han
February 2009, Biomaterials,
Copied contents to your clipboard!