Nanostructured calcium phosphate coatings on magnesium alloys: characterization and cytocompatibility with mesenchymal stem cells

  • Maria Emil Iskandar
  • Arash Aslani
  • Qiaomu Tian
  • Huinan LiuEmail author
Engineering and Nano-engineering Approaches for Medical Devices
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Engineering and Nano-engineering Approaches for Medical Devices


This article reports the deposition and characterization of nanostructured calcium phosphate (nCaP) on magnesium–yttrium alloy substrates and their cytocompatibility with bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs). The nCaP coatings were deposited on magnesium and magnesium–yttrium alloy substrates using proprietary transonic particle acceleration process for the dual purposes of modulating substrate degradation and BMSC adhesion. Surface morphology and feature size were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and quantitative image analysis tools. Surface elemental compositions and phases were analyzed using energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction, respectively. The deposited nCaP coatings showed a homogeneous particulate surface with the dominant feature size of 200–500 nm in the long axis and 100–300 nm in the short axis, and a Ca/P atomic ratio of 1.5–1.6. Hydroxyapatite was the major phase identified in the nCaP coatings. The modulatory effects of nCaP coatings on the sample degradation and BMSC behaviors were dependent on the substrate composition and surface conditions. The direct culture of BMSCs in vitro indicated that multiple factors, including surface composition and topography, and the degradation-induced changes in media composition, influenced cell adhesion directly on the sample surface, and indirect adhesion surrounding the sample in the same culture. The alkaline pH, the indicator of Mg degradation, played a role in BMSC adhesion and morphology, but not the sole factor. Additional studies are necessary to elucidate BMSC responses to each contributing factor.


Mass Gain Scanning Electron Micrographs Image Standard Cell Culture Condition Dicalcium Phosphate Dihydrate Initial Seeding Density 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank the NSF BRIGE award (CBET 1125801), NIH/NIDCR SBIR award (6 R43 DE023287-02), and the University of California Regents Faculty Fellowship (H.L.) for financial support. We would also like to thank Dr. Krassimir Bozhilov at the Central Facility for Advanced Microscopy and Microanalysis (CFAMM) for the SEM training at the University of California, Riverside.


  1. 1.
    Staiger MP, Pietak AM, Huadmai J, Dias G. Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review. Biomaterials. 2006;27:1728–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reifenrath J, Bormann D, Meyer-Lindenberg A. Magnesium alloys as promising degradable implant materials in orthopedic research. In: Czerwinski F, editor. Magnesium alloys—corrosion and surface treatments. Rijeka: Intech; 2011. p. 94–108.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seal CK, Vince K, Hodgson MA. Biodegradable surgical implants based on magnesium alloys: a review of current research. IOP Conf Ser. 2009;4:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson I, Perchy D, Liu H. In vitro evaluation of the surface effects on magnesium-yttrium alloy degradation and mesenchymal stem cell adhesion. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;100A:477–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Witte F, Ulrich H, Palm C, Willbold E. Biodegradable magnesium scaffolds: part II: peri-implant bone remodeling. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007;81:757–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guangling S. Control of biodegradation of biocompatible magnesium alloys. Corros Sci. 2007;49:1696–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Song GL, Atrens A. Corrosion mechanisms of magnesium alloys. Adv Eng Mater. 1999;1:11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Song GL, Atrens A. Understanding magnesium corrosion—a framework for improved alloy performance. Adv Eng Mater. 2003;5:837–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lock JY, Wyatt E, Upadhyayula S, Whall A, Nuñez V, Vullev VI, et al. Degradation and antibacterial properties of magnesium alloys in artificial urine for potential resorbable ureteral stent applications. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2014;102:781–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xin YC, Huo KF, Tao H, Tang GY, Chu PK. Influence of aggressive ions on the degradation behavior of biomedical magnesium alloy in physiological environment. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:2008–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mueller W-D, Fernandez Lorenzo de Mele M, Nascimento ML, Zeddies M. Degradation of magnesium and its alloys: dependence on the composition of the synthetic biological media. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2009;90A:487–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yun Y, Dong ZY, Yang DE, Schulz MJ, Shanov VN, Yarmolenko S, et al. Biodegradable Mg corrosion and osteoblast cell culture studies. Mat Sci Eng C. 2009;29:1814–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Song GL. Recent progress in corrosion and protection of magnesium alloys. Adv Eng Mater. 2005;7:563–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson I, Liu H. A study on factors affecting the degradation of magnesium and a magnesium-yttrium alloy for biomedical applications. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song YW, Shan DY, Chen RS, Zhang F, Han EH. Biodegradable behaviors of AZ31 magnesium alloy in simulated body fluid. Mater Sci Eng, C. 2009;29:1039–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wong HM, Yeung KWK, Lam KO, Tam V, Chu PK, Luk KDK, et al. A biodegradable polymer-based coating to control the performance of magnesium alloy orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials. 2010;31:2084–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yun YH, Dong ZY, Lee N, Liu YJ, Xue DC, Guo XF, et al. Revolutionizing biodegradable metals. Mater Today. 2009;12:22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xu LP, Pan F, Yu GN, Yang L, Zhang EL, Yang K. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the surface bioactivity of a calcium phosphate coated magnesium alloy. Biomaterials. 2009;30:1512–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gray-Munro JE, Seguin C, Strong M. Influence of surface modification on the in vitro corrosion rate of magnesium alloy AZ31. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2009;91A:221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yao HB, Li Y, Wee ATS. Passivity behavior of melt-spun Mg-Y alloys. Electrochim Acta. 2003;48:4197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Socjusz-Podosek M, Litynska L. Effect of yttrium on structure and mechanical properties of Mg alloys. Mater Chem Phys. 2003;80:472–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aghion E, Gueta Y, Moscovitch N, Bronfin B. Effect of yttrium additions on the properties of grain-refined Mg-3%Nd alloy. J Mater Sci. 2008;43:4870–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu BL, Zhao YH, Du XH, Zhang YD, Wagner F, Esling C. Ductility enhancement of extruded magnesium via yttrium addition. Mat Sci Eng A. 2010;527:4334–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson I, Akari K, Liu H. Nanostructured hydroxyapatite/poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) composite coating for controlling magnesium degradation in simulated body fluid. Nanotechnology. 2013;24:375103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Iskandar ME, Aslani A, Liu H. The effects of nanostructured hydroxyapatite coating on the biodegradation and cytocompatibility of magnesium implants. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2013;101A:2340–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cui W, Beniash E, Gawalt E, Xu Z, Sfeir C. Biomimetic coating of magnesium alloy for enhanced corrosion resistance and calcium phosphate deposition. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:8650–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wong HM, Yeung KW, Lam KO, Tam V, Chu PK, Luk KD, et al. A biodegradable polymer-based coating to control the performance of magnesium alloy orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials. 2010;31:2084–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sebaa MA, Dhillon S, Liu H. Electrochemical deposition and evaluation of electrically conductive polymer coating on biodegradable magnesium implants for neural applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24:307–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sebaa M, Nguyen TY, Dhillon S, Garcia S, Liu H. The effects of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) coating on magnesium degradation and cytocompatibility with human embryonic stem cells for potential neural applications. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103:25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Song Y, Zhang SX, Li JA, Zhao CL, Zhang XN. Electrodeposition of Ca-P coatings on biodegradable Mg alloy: in vitro biomineralization behavior. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:1736–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu H, Yazici H, Ergun C, Webster TJ, Bermek H. An in vitro evaluation of the Ca/P ratio for the cytocompatibility of nano-to-micron particulate calcium phosphates for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:1472–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang C. Effect of calcium phosphate surface coating on bone ingrowth onto porous-surfaced titanium alloy implants in rabbit tibiae. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60:422–5 discussion 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Groot K, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Calcium phosphate coatings for medical implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1998;212:137–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shadanbaz S, Dias GJ. Calcium phosphate coatings on magnesium alloys for biomedical applications: a review. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Webster TJ, Ahn ES. Nanostructured biomaterials for tissue engineering bone. Tissue engineering II: basics of tissue engineering and tissue applications. Berlin: Springer; 2007. p. 275–308.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim HW, Kim HE, Salih V. Stimulation of osteoblast responses to biomimetic nanocomposites of gelatin-hydroxyapatite for tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Webster TJ, Ergun C, Doremus RH, Siegel RW, Bizios R. Specific proteins mediate enhanced osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;51:475–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Webster T, Ergun C, Doremus R, Siegel R, Bizios R. Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials. 2000;21:1803–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liao J, Hammerick KE, Challen GA, Goode MA, Kasper FK, Mikos AG. Investigating the role of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells in regulating the osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells in vitro. J Orthop Res. 2011;29:1544–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Little MA, Kalkhoran NM, Aslani A, Tobin EJ, Burns JE. Process for depositing calcium phosphate therapeutic coatings with different release rates and a prosthesis coated via the process. Google Patents. 2011.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu H. The effects of surface and biomolecules on magnesium degradation and mesenchymal stem cell adhesion. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2011;99A:249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cipriano AF, Sallee A, Guan RG, Zhao ZY, Tayoba M, Sanchez J, et al. Investigation of magnesium-zinc-calcium alloys and bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cell response in direct culture. Acta Biomater. 2015;12:298–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Suzuki O. Octacalcium phosphate: osteoconductivity and crystal chemistry. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:3379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    LeGeros RZ. Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: calcium phosphates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;395:81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kikuchi M, Itoh S, Ichinose S, Shinomiya K, Tanaka J. Self-organization mechanism in a bone-like hydroxyapatite/collagen nanocomposite synthesized in vitro and its biological reaction in vivo. Biomaterials. 2001;22:1705–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Suzuki O, Kamakura S, Katagiri T, Nakamura M, Zhao BH, Honda Y, et al. Bone formation enhanced by implanted octacalcium phosphate involving conversion into Ca-deficient hydroxyapatite. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2671–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Galli S, Naito Y, Karlsson J, He W, Andersson M, Wennerberg A, et al. Osteoconductive potential of mesoporous titania implant surfaces loaded with magnesium: an experimental study in the rabbit. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014. doi: 10.1111/cid.12211.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lock J, Liu H. Nanomaterials enhance osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells similar to a short peptide of BMP-7. Int J Nanomedicine. 2011;6:2769–77.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nguyen TY, Liew CG, Liu H. An in vitro mechanism study on the proliferation and pluripotency of human embryonic stems cells in response to magnesium degradation. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lo CM, Keese CR, Giaever I. pH changes in pulsed CO2 incubators cause periodic changes in cell morphology. Exp Cell Res. 1994;213:391–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jager M, Zilkens C, Zanger K, Krauspe R. Significance of nano- and microtopography for cell-surface interactions in orthopaedic implants. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2007;8:69036.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cheng Z, Guo C, Dong W, He F-M, Zhao S-F, Yang G-L. Effect of thin nano-hydroxyapatite coating on implant osseointegration in ovariectomized rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;113:E48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Liu H, Webster TJ. Nanomedicine for implants: a review of studies and necessary experimental tools. Biomaterials. 2007;28:354–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gayathri BPK. Macrophage and osteoblast response to micro and nano hydroxyapatite—a review. Nano Vis. 2011;1:1–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA
  2. 2.N2 Biomedical LLCBedfordUSA
  3. 3.Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA
  4. 4.Stem Cell CenterUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations