See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7521100

Magnesium and its Alloys as Orthopedic Biomaterials

Article  in  Biomaterials · April 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.10.003 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

1,965 2,068

4 authors, including:

Mark Peter Staiger Alexis Mari Pietak

University of Canterbury Allen Discovery Center at Tufts University
110 PUBLICATIONS   5,505 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   2,851 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

George J Dias
University of Otago
86 PUBLICATIONS   3,473 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Magnesium-based biomaterials View project

Natural Fibre Composites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexis Mari Pietak on 27 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Biomaterials 27 (2006) 1728–1734

www.elsevier.com/locate/biomaterials

Review

Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: A review

Mark P. Staigera, Alexis M. Pietaka,, Jerawala Huadmaia, George Diasb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
b
Department of Anatomy & Structural Biology, University of Otago Medical School, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand
Received 20 June 2005; accepted 3 October 2005
Available online 24 October 2005

Abstract

As a lightweight metal with mechanical properties similar to natural bone, a natural ionic presence with significant functional roles in
biological systems, and in vivo degradation via corrosion in the electrolytic environment of the body, magnesium-based implants have
the potential to serve as biocompatible, osteoconductive, degradable implants for load-bearing applications. This review explores the
properties, biological performance, challenges and future directions of magnesium-based biomaterials.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Magnesium; Orthopedic implant

Contents

1. Introduction: the exciting potential of magnesium-based implants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1728

2. Biological performance of existing magnesium-based orthopedic implants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1729
3. Suggested biological activity of magnesium metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1731
4. Improvement of corrosion resistance, mechanical properties and biological performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1731
4.1. Alloying and surface treatments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1731
4.2. Porous magnesium microstructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1732
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1733
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1733
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1733

1. Introduction: the exciting potential of magnesium-based cobalt–chromium-based alloys. A limitation of these

implants
Metallic materials continue to play an essential role as
biomaterials to assist with the repair or replacement of
bone tissue that has become diseased or damaged [1].
Metals are more suitable for load-bearing applications
compared with ceramics or polymeric materials due to their
combination of high mechanical strength and fracture
toughness. Currently approved and commonly used
metallic biomaterials include stainless steels, titanium and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 3 389 8207.
E-mail address: alexis.pietak@gmail.com (A.M. Pietak).
current metallic biomaterials is the possible release of toxic
metallic ions and/or particles through corrosion or wear
processes [2–6] that lead to inflammatory cascades which
reduce biocompatibility and cause tissue loss [2,4–13].
Moreover, the elastic moduli of current metallic biomater-
ials are not well matched with that of natural bone tissue,
resulting in stress shielding effects that can lead to reduced
stimulation of new bone growth and remodeling which
decreases implant stability [14]. Current metallic biomater-
ials are essentially neutral in vivo, remaining as permanent
fixtures, which in the case of plates, screws and pins used to
secure serious fractures, must be removed by a second
surgical procedure after the tissue has healed sufficiently

0142-9612/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.10.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.P. Staiger et al. / Biomaterials 27 (2006) 1728–1734
Table 1
Summary of the physical and mechanical properties of various implant materials in comparison to natural bone
Properties Natural bone Magnesium
Density (g/cm3) 1.8–2.1 1.74–2.0
Elastic modulus (Gpa) 3–20 41–45
Compressive yield strength (Mpa) 130–180 65–100
Fracture toughness (MPam1/2) 3–6 15–40
Compiled from references [16–19; 20].
[15]. Repeat surgery increases costs to the health care
system and further morbidity to the patient.
Magnesium is an exceptionally lightweight metal. With a
density of 1.74 g/cm3, magnesium is 1.6 and 4.5 times less
dense than aluminum and steel, respectively [16]. The
fracture toughness of magnesium is greater than ceramic
biomaterials such as hydroxyapatite, while the elastic
modulus and compressive yield strength of magnesium
are closer to those of natural bone than is the case for other
commonly used metallic implants (Table 1). Moreover,
magnesium is essential to human metabolism and is
naturally found in bone tissue [21–26]. It is the fourth
most abundant cation in the human body, with an
estimated 1 mol of magnesium stored in the body of a
normal 70 kg adult, with approximately half of the total
physiological magnesium stored in bone tissue [21].
Magnesium is a co-factor for many enzymes, and stabilizes
the structures of DNA and RNA [26]. The level of
magnesium in the extracellular fluid ranges between 0.7
and 1.05 mmol/L, where homeostasis is maintained by the
kidneys and intestine [21]. While serum magnesium levels
exceeding 1.05 mmol/L can lead to muscular paralysis,
hypotension and respiratory distress [22], and cardiac
arrest occurs for severely high serum levels of 6–7 mmol/L,
the incidence of hyper-magnesium is rare due to the
efficient excretion of the element in the urine [21,22,24].
The major drawback of magnesium in many engineering
applications—its low corrosion resistance, especially in
electrolytic, aqueous environments—becomes an intriguing
property for biomaterial applications, where the in vivo
corrosion of the magnesium-based implant involves the
formation of a soluble, non-toxic oxide that is harmlessly
excreted in the urine. Moreover, due to functional roles
and presence in bone tissue, magnesium may actually have
stimulatory effects on the growth of new bone tissue
[27–30]. Thus, it is projected that magnesium and its alloys
be applied as lightweight, degradable, load bearing
orthopedic implants, which would remain present in the
body and maintain mechanical integrity over a time scale
of 12–18 weeks while the bone tissue heals, eventually being
replaced by natural tissue [31,32]. The unfortunate
complication is that pure magnesium can corrode too
quickly in the physiological pH (7.4–7.6) and high chloride
environment of the physiological system, loosing mechan-
ical integrity before the tissue has sufficiently healed and
producing hydrogen gas in the corrosion process at a rate
1729
Ti alloy Co–Cr alloy Stainless steel Synthetic hydroxyapatite
4.4–4.5 8.3–9.2 7.9–8.1 3.1
110–117 230 189–205 73–117
758–1117 450–1000 170–310 600
55–115 N/A 50–200 0.7
that is too fast to be dealt with by the host tissue [31,33,34].
It is likely that in spite of some early successes with
magnesium-based implants [33,35,36], the metal was
abandoned due to the production of gas during the in
vivo corrosion process when stainless steels became
available [31]. Several possibilities exist to tailor the
corrosion rate of magnesium by using alloying elements
and protective coatings, processes that of course must lead
to a non-toxic, biologically compatible material.
This work reviews the biological performance of
different magnesium-based materials that have been used
as orthopedic biomaterials, reports on the safety of
magnesium in the body, hypothesizes upon various
biologically active features of magnesium-based implants,
explores possible routes to improve limiting factors such as
the corrosion resistance and improve integration of the
implant with tissue, and ultimately highlights the need for
further research.
2. Biological performance of existing magnesium-based
orthopedic implants
Magnesium-based materials were first introduced as
orthopedic biomaterials in the first half of the century.
The first use of magnesium was reported by Lambotte in
1907, who utilized a plate of pure magnesium (actual purity
level unknown) with gold-plated steel nails to secure a
fracture involving the bones of the lower leg [33]. The
attempt failed as the pure magnesium metal corroded too
rapidly in vivo, disintegrating only 8 days after surgery and
producing a large amount of gas beneath the skin [33]. In
an attempt to slow the corrosion process and increase the
mechanical integrity of the implants, future in vivo works
have investigated various magnesium alloys [34,31,35–40].
Troitskii and Tsitrin, in 1944, reported on 34 cases where
magnesium, alloyed with small levels of cadmium, was
fashioned into plates and screws and used to secure various
fractures [34]. Of the 34 cases, 9 were unsuccessful; these
failures were attributed to infection, or difficulties arising
with the mounting of a plaster cast, which presumably did
not allow for treatment of gas cysts [34]. In all patients, no
increase in serum levels of magnesium was observed. No
distinct inflammatory reactions to the implant were
observed [34]. The material is reported to have stimulated
the development of a hard callous at the fracture site [34].
Hydrogen gas was given off in the corrosion process,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1730 M.P. Staiger et al. / Biomaterials 27 (2006) 1728–1734
however, was easily treated by drawing off the gas with a
subcutaneous needle [34]. While the sizes of the implants
used were not given, it is reported that the mechanical
integrity of most were maintained for 6–8 weeks, with
complete resorption occurring in 10–12 months [34]. On
the contrary however, it was also reported that some
implants only survived 3–5 weeks, which was attributed to
increased acidity in the environment of some fractures [34].
Similar results were reported by Znamenski in 1945, where
magnesium alloy containing 10 wt% aluminum was used to
treat gunshot wounds in two young men [37]. In both cases,
fractures fused in 6 weeks, with the magnesium plate no
longer detectable after 6 weeks, and the pins no longer
detected after 4 weeks [37]. McBride reports on the use of
screws, pegs, plates and bands prepared from magnesiu-
m–aluminum–manganese alloys to secure 20 fractures and
bone grafts [35]. Consistent with other reports, no systemic
reactions to the use of magnesium alloys or inflammatory
reactions adjacent to the implant are observed [35]. While
no effect on the cancellous bone tissues is observed, a
positive effect on the periosteal tissue and deposits of the
osseous callous are reported [35]. McBride reports that
while the absorption rate is higher for traumatized bone
tissue, a typical magnesium–aluminium–manganese 1 gm
screw would completely absorb in 120 days [35].
These early examples imply that magnesium-based
materials are non-toxic and may actually stimulate bone
tissue healing. However, the rate of corrosion of pure
magnesium, or these simple alloys, occurs at a rate that is
too rapid to allow sufficient time for healing as it is
desirable to have the implanted fixture present for at least
12 weeks [31].
In an effort to improve the corrosion resistance of
magnesium, more complex alloying compositions may be
necessary, with the addition of small levels (o4%) of rare
earth elements having the most significant effect. Stroga-
nov et al. report that magnesium alloyed with 0.4–4 wt%
rare earth metal, 0.05–1.2 wt% cadmium, 0.05–1.0 wt%
calcium or aluminum, and variable, trace (o0.8%) levels
of manganese, silver, zirconium or silicon had a slowed
Fig. 1. Flouroscopic images of cross-sections of a degradable polymer (a) and a magnesium rod (b) with in vivo staining of newly formed bone resolved
using calcein green. Bar ¼ 1.5 mm. I ¼ Implant residual; P ¼ periosteal bone formation; E ¼ endosteal bone formation. Reproduced from Witte et al.
[31].
corrosion rate, with pins 3 mm in diameter present for 5
months, and pins 8 mm in diameter present for 11 months
in vivo [40]. No information was given as to how long the
mechanical integrity of the implants survived or if the
potentially toxic effects of the alloying elements were
considered [40].
More recently, Witte et al. explored the in vivo
degradation of magnesium-based alloys, comparing two
alloys containing only aluminum and zinc, and two alloys
with rare earth element combinations [31,39]. The alumi-
num–zinc alloys contained 3 wt% aluminum and 1 wt%
zinc (AZ31), and 9 wt% aluminum and 1 wt% zinc (AZ91).
The first rare-earth alloy was composed of 4 wt% yttrium
and 3 wt% of a rare earth metal mixture consisting of
neodymium, cerium and dysprosium (WE43). The final
rare-earth alloy consisted of 4 wt% lithium, 4 wt%
aluminum and 2 wt% of a rare earth element mixture of
cerium, lanthanum, neodymium and praseodymium
(LAE442). The implants consisted of rods 1.5 mm in
diameter and 20 mm in length, inserted into the femur of
guinea pigs. A rod of polylactide of the same dimensions
was used as a control. Radiographs were taken frequently,
and implants were harvested at 6 and 18 weeks. Synchro-
tron-radiation-based microtomography was used to char-
acterize the degradation of the implants, for which
complete degradation was observed in 18 weeks [39].
Significantly increased (Po0:05) bone area was observed in
all groups with magnesium-based implants at weeks 6 and
18, in comparison to the polymer control [31]. Fig. 1
illustrates the increased bone area to magnesium implants
[31]. Subcutaneous gas pockets were observed after 1 week,
which were removed using a syringe, and were not
observed after 2–3 weeks [31]. Adverse effects due to the
formation of subcutaneous gas were not observed [31]. The
slowest rate of corrosion was noted for LAE442, while
AZ31, AZ91 and WE43 degraded at similar rates [31].
Energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) was used to form
elemental maps of the corrosion layer and new bone tissue
[31]. The rare earth elements were shown to be localized in
the corrosion layer, and were not detected in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.P. Staiger et al. / Biomaterials 27 (2006) 1728–1734
surrounding bone [31]. The corrosion layer also contained
high levels of calcium and phosphorous, and X-ray
diffraction analysis suggested that an amorphous calcium
phosphate had formed at the surface of the material in vivo
[31].
While magnesium is a prevalent ion in the body, and
magnesium-based implants have been used in vivo without
signs of adverse reactions, more information is required to
confirm its safe use. Li et al. have conducted a preliminary
in vitro assessment of the cytotoxicity of pure and surface-
treated magnesium metal using bone marrow cells of mice
[24]. The results show positive cell proliferation and
viability after 72 h of incubation with the magnesium
metals, with no sign of growth inhibition.
While further investigation into the non-toxicity, bio-
compatibility, mechanical integrity, in vivo degradation
processes and bone response is clearly necessary, the above
examples support the viability of magnesium-based mate-
rials as lightweight, degradable, biologically compatible
and possibly biologically active orthopedic implants.
3. Suggested biological activity of magnesium metal
Osteoconductive bioactivity in magnesium-based metals
is suggested by observations of increased bone apposition
about magnesium-based implants compared to PLA
controls [31] and a decreased time for hard callous
formation when magnesium-based structures were used to
support fractures in humans [34,37]. While investigations
of bone cell response to pure magnesium metal are scarce, a
number of studies have investigated the effect of enriching
the surface of a biomaterial such as hydroxyapatite with
magnesium ions and suggest a biochemical role for
magnesium in the bone system [27–30,41]. Revell et al.
observed increased interfacial strength for implants with
hydroxyapatite surfaces enriched with magnesium [27].
Zreiqat et al. report significantly increased bone cell
adhesion on magnesium-enriched alumina [28]. Cells
grown on magnesium enriched substrates expressed a
significantly enhanced level of a5b1 integrin receptor, in
addition to increased expression of collagen I extracellular
matrix protein, thus suggesting a role of magnesium in the
cell attachment process [28]. Two studies conducted by
Yamasaki et al. using magnesium-enriched apatites or
collagen materials report similar beneficial effects of
magnesium-enriched materials on bone cell attachment
and tissue growth [29,30]. On the contrary, Serre et al.,
working with collagen sponges and magnesium-enriched
apatite, report a toxic effect of higher magnesium levels on
bone cells in vitro [41]. From these results, the biological
activity of magnesium is an intriguing prospect, but as of
yet the potential remains largely unexplored.
Preliminary observations indicate that magnesium pro-
motes precipitation of calcium phosphate in an in vitro
environment, a feature that may be exploited to induce or
enhance osteoconductivity, while also improving the in situ
corrosion resistance [42,43]. It is now widely recognized
1731
that the osteoconductive activity of many materials is
highly dependent on the precipitation of a biologically
equivalent apatite in a physiological electrolyte—a coating
method referred to as a biomimetic process [44–53]. The
biomimetic precipitation of a calcium phosphate coating
on titanium implants has been shown to impart osteocon-
ductive capacity to otherwise biologically neutral material,
enhancing osteoblast response and early bone apposition
to the implant [54–57]. The method of biomimetic
precipitation is favored over other coating methods such
as plasma spraying due to the low temperature processing
which allows for incorporation of biological moieties such
as RGD proteins, the capacity to evenly deposit the coating
onto complex porous forms, increased coating adhesion
and a greater similarity to the apatite crystals of natural
bone which imparts a greater biological activity to the
resulting surface [45,53].
The precipitation of amorphous calcium phosphate or
magnesium calcium apatite ((Ca1
xMgx)10(PO4)6OH2)
coatings has been observed on the surface of magnesium-
based metals incubated in physiological electrolyte [42,43].
A similar coating is observed in the corrosion layer of
magnesium-based metals implanted in vivo [31]. In
addition to the possible enhancement of cell attachment
and growth, the precipitation of calcium phosphates at the
surface may slow the corrosion process of magnesium
[42,43]. Given the recent success in the improvement of the
biological response to titanium metals through the induc-
tion of a biomimetic calcium phosphate coating, the
potential feature of magnesium metals is an intriguing
possibility, certainly worthy of further exploration.
4. Improvement of corrosion resistance, mechanical
properties and biological performance
4.1. Alloying and surface treatments
The rapid corrosion rate of magnesium in the electrolytic
physiological environment is one of the greatest limitations
for its use in orthopedic applications. Unprotected
magnesium exposed to a typical atmosphere will develop
a gray oxide film of magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2)
which slows corrosion [58]. These films of Mg(OH)2 are
slightly soluble in water, however severe corrosion occurs
in aqueous physiological environments where chloride ions
are present at levels on the order of 150 mmol/L, as
Mg(OH)2 reacts with Cl
to form highly soluble magne-
sium chloride and hydrogen gas [58]. Pitting of magnesium
is observed for Cl
concentrations exceeding 30 mmol/L
[58]. The following reactions summarize the corrosion
reactions of magnesium:
MgðsÞ þ 2H2 O-MgðOHÞ2 ðsÞ þ H2 ðgÞ; (1)
MgðsÞ þ 2Cl
ðaqÞ-MgCl2 ; (2)
MgðOHÞ2 ðsÞ þ 2Cl
-MgCl2 : (3)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1732 M.P. Staiger et al. / Biomaterials 27 (2006) 1728–1734
Alloying is an essential step to improve mechanical
properties and corrosion resistance of magnesium [58,59].
Protective coatings and surface treatments [60] can also be
applied to improve the corrosion resistance and potentially
improve biological compatibility and biological activity of
magnesium-based implants.
An appropriate alloying composition can improve the
corrosion resistance, mechanical properties and the ease
of manufacture of magnesium-based materials. Two
primary groups of magnesium-based alloys are those
that contain 2–10 wt% aluminum with trace additions of
zinc and manganese, with products that demonstrate
moderate corrosion resistance and improved mechanical
properties [58]. The second group uses a mixture of rare
earth elements in combination with another metal such
as zinc, yttrium, or silver, and a small amount of
zirconium which imparts a fine grain structure and
enhanced mechanical properties [58]. Little is known about
the in vivo corrosion characteristics of these metals,
however the work of Witte et al. suggests that some
magnesium-rare earth alloys have a slightly enhanced
corrosion resistance [31]. As these materials are used in the
body, care must be taken to choose alloying elements that
are non-toxic.
For orthopedic applications, protective coatings for
magnesium must be non-toxic, and aim to improve the
biocompatibility/bioactivity of the implant. Simple
but effective options include alkali-heat treatments, which
may induce a biomimetic precipitation of calcium phos-
phate at the implant surface [42]. Li et al. have demon-
strated that incubation of 99.9% pure magnesium in an
alkaline solution of NaHCO3–MgCO3 at a pH of 9.3 for
24 h, followed by a 773 K 10 h heat treatment results in
no mass loss from materials incubated for 14 days in
simulated body fluid (SBF), compared to untreated, or
only alkali treated controls which completely degraded in
this incubation period [42]. Li et al. also note that for high
purity magnesium (99.99%) no mass loss was observed
after 180 days of incubation in SBF [42]. A calcium
phosphate phase was observed at the surface of the treated
samples and was attributed as a possible inhibitor of
further corrosion [42]. In a similar study, magnesium
(99.9% purity) was reported to be heat treated at 743, 773
and 803 K for 1–25 h in an ambient atmosphere [43].
Mass losses were not observed for materials heat treated
at 803 K compared with treatments at 743 or 773 K where
near complete loss of the material was observed after
29 days of incubation in SBF [43]. Incubation of the
803 K heat treated material in SBF resulted in the
precipitation of magnesium-apatite at the surface (at an
approximate composition of (Ca0.86Mg0.14)10(PO4)6(OH)2)
which is thought to reduce the corrosion of the material
[43]. The authors do note that MgO is observed in their
samples after heat treatments under ambient conditions
[43], however the effect of the oxidation of magnesium on
its mechanical properties was not evaluated by these
authors.
4.2. Porous magnesium microstructures
A microstructure of interconnected pores in the solid
matrix results in an implant with lower density and
considerably altered mechanical properties and deforma-
tion behavior [17]. Appropriate choice of pore size can
result in significantly improved integration of the implant
with natural tissue [61]. An example of a magnesium
material with a porous microstructure appropriate for an
orthopedic application is shown in Fig. 2, reproduced from
the work of Wen et al. [62].
In contrast to monolithic materials, porous materials
under a compressive load are characterized by a shortened
region of linear elasticity ending at the yield strength which
is followed by a long plateau exhibiting a constant flow
stress to large strains [17]. The number, size, shape and
connectivity of pores have significant effects on the
Young’s modulus and yield stress [17]. Cancellous bone is
an interconnected, porous structure, and consequentially it
exhibits deformation mechanisms that are typical of such
materials [18]. The porosity of cancellous bone varies
considerably from 30% to 95%, which significantly
influences the resulting mechanical properties—yield stres-
ses of cancellous bone are reported to range from 3 to
20 MPa, with corresponding Young’s moduli from 10 to
40 GPa [18]. Thus, the inclusion of porosity can benefit the
material by increasing biological integration and by
adjusting the mechanical properties to comply with the
natural bone system at hand. On the other hand, too many
large pores will compromise the mechanical properties of
the implant making it unsuitable for a load bearing
applications.
A number of techniques are available to produce an
open porous metallic structure [63], however to ensure the
biocompatibility of the resulting material, one must be
careful when selecting the reagents or methods used for the
generation of the pores [64]. Porous magnesium metal
Fig. 2. SEM micrograph of a magnesium material with porous micro-
structure produced using space-holding particles. Reproduced from Wen
et al. [62].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.P. Staiger et al. / Biomaterials 27 (2006) 1728–1734
implants suitable for biomaterial applications have been
prepared using argon gas injection to molten magnesium
[64] a plaster casting method using a polyurethane foam
[65], a powder metallurgy techniques using space-holding
particles [32,62,66]. While plaster casting and powder
processing using space-holding particles produced viable
products [32,62,65,66], production using foaming by
injection of argon gas to the molten metal did not produce
a product with consistent morphology and this approach
has been abandoned [64].
Pore volume and size significantly affect the mechanical
properties of porous magnesium materials [32,62,65]. In all
cases, the inclusion of porosity results in a material with
reduced yield strength and modulus, corresponding with
the lower range of mechanical properties of natural bone
[18,32,62,65]. In fact, as monolithic magnesium metals are
already in the appropriate mechanical range for the bone
system [16,17], and using the lower limit of 3 MPa reported
for natural bone strength [18] as the design guideline, the
inclusion of porosity can quickly compromise the mechan-
ical strength. For instance, magnesium foams produced
using the plaster casting method with porosities of 97.5%
and macroscopic pore diameters of 4.5 mm would be
unsuitable for load bearing orthopedic applications as
compressive yield stresses are reduced to 0.1 MPa [65].
Similarly magnesium samples with porosities of 50% and
pore sizes in the range of 100–400 mm have compressive
strengths of only 0.35 MPa [32]. In a more comprehensive
study conducted by Wen et al. the yield stress and modulus
of porous magnesium materials are found to decrease with
both the pore volume and size [62]. Samples with suitable
compressive strengths between 12 and 17 MPa were
obtained with 35–50% porosity and fixed pore size of
250 mm, or by fixing the porosity at 45% and varying the
pore size between 100 and 400 mm [62].
5. Conclusions
While a substantial number of reports generate intrigue
regarding the use of magnesium and its alloys as possibly
osteoconductive, degradable orthopedic implants for load-
bearing applications, a great deal of research is still
necessary to appropriately evaluate magnesium’s potential.
As a first step, it is clear that modulation of the corrosion
rate of magnesium-based materials in the physiological
environment must be accomplished, possibly through the
use of high purity magnesium or experimenting with
alloying composition and surface treatments. The non-
toxicity of magnesium materials and more corrosion-
resistant variations must also be thoroughly evaluated.
The possibility that magnesium is an osteoconductive metal
is a feature which calls for investigations of in vitro bone
cell attachment, differentiation towards an osteoblast
phenotype, proliferation and formation of a mineralized
matrix and studies of bone apposition and tissue in-growth
in vivo. The development, performance and integration
1733
with bone tissue of porous magnesium-based implants are
also topics requiring further investigation.
Acknowledgements
One of the authors (MPS) would also like to acknowl-
edge the Brian Mason Scientific & Technical Trust for their
financial support.
References
[1] Niinomi M. Recent metallic materials for biomedical applications.
Met Mater Trans A 2002;33:477–86.
[2] Puleo DA, Huh WW. Acute toxicity of metal ions in cultures of
osteogenic cells derived from bone marrow stromal cells. J Appl
Biomater 1995;6:109–16.
[3] Jacobs JJ, Gilbert JL, Urban RM. Corrosion of metal orthopaedic
implants. J Bone Joint Surg 1998;80:268–82.
[4] Lhotka C, Szekeres T, Steffan I, Zhuber K, Zweymuller K. Four-year
study of cobalt and chromium blood levels in patients managed with
two different metal-on-metal total hip replacements. J Orthop Res
2003;21:189–95.
[5] Jacobs JJ, Skipor AK, Patterson LM, Hallab NJ, Paprosky WG,
Black J, et al. Metal release in patients who have had a primary total
hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1998;80:1447–58.
[6] Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ, Skipor AK, Urban RM. Metal degradation
products: a cause for concern in metal-metal bearings? Clin Orthop
Relat Res 2003;417:139–47.
[7] Granchi D, Ciapetti G, Stea S, Filippini AS, Zinghi G, Monteraro L.
Cytokine release in mononuclear cells of patients with Co–Cr hip
prosthesis. Biomaterials 1999;20:1079–86.
[8] Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Suda Y, Otani T, Fujikawa K, Toyama Y, et
al. Metal ions induce bone-resorption cytokyne production through
the redox pathway in synoviocytes and bone marrow macrophages.
Biomaterials 2003;24:1447–57.
[9] Haynes DR, Boyle SJ, Rogers SD, Howie DW, Vernon-Robert B.
Variation in cytokines induced by particles from different prosthetic
materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;352:223–30.
[10] Wang JY, Wicklund BH, Gustilo RB, Tsukayama DT. Titanium,
chromium and cobalt ions modulate the release of bone-associated
cytokines by human monocytes/macrophages in vitro. Biomaterials
1996;17:2233–40.
[11] Bi Y, van de Motter RR, Ragab AA, Goldberg VM, Anderson JM,
Greenfield EM. Titanium particles stimulate bone resorption by
inducing differentiation of murine osteoclasts. J Biomed Mater Res
2001;83:501–8.
[12] Allen MJ, Myer BJ, Millet PJ, Rushton N. The effects of particulate
cobalt, chromium and cobalt-chromium alloy on human osteoblast-
like cells in vitro. J Bone Joint Surg 1997;79:475–82.
[13] Wang ML, Nesti LJ, Tuli R, Lazatin J, Danielson KG, Sharkey PF, et
al. Titanium particles suppress expression of osteoblastic phenotype in
human messenchymal stem cells. J Orthop Res 2002;20:1175–84.
[14] Nagels J, Stokdijk M, Rozing PM. Stress shielding and bone resorption
in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003;12:35–9.
[15] Park JB, Kim YK. Metallic biomaterials. In: Park JB, Bronzino JD,
editors. Biomaterials principles and application. Boca Raton: CRC
Press; 2003.
[16] DeGarmo PE. Materials and processes in manufacturing, 5th ed.
New York: Collin Macmillan; 1979.
[17] Gibson L, Ashby M. Cellular solids. Structure and properties.
Sydney: Pergamon Press; 1988. p. 1–41.
[18] Gibson L, Ashby M. Cellular solids. Structure and properties.
Sydney: Pergamon Press; 1988. p. 316–331.
[19] Choi JW, Kong YM, Kim HE, Lee IS. Reinforcement of
hydroxyapatite bioceramic by addition of Ni3Al and Al2O3. J Am
Ceram Soc 1998;81:1743–91.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1734 M.P. Staiger et al. / Biomaterials 27 (2006) 1728–1734
[20] Thamaraiselvi TV, Rajeswari S. Biological evaluation of bioceramic
materials—a review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2004;19:9–17.
[21] Water, electrolyte mineral and acid/base metabolism. Section 2.
Endocrine & Metabolic Disorders. Merk Manual of Diagnosis and
Therapy[ Chapter 12].
[22] Saris NEL. Magnesium: an update on physiological, clinical and
analytical aspects. Clin Chim Acta 2000;294:1–26.
[23] Okuma T. Magnesium and bone strength. Nutrition 2001;17:679–80.
[24] Vormann J. Magnesium: nutrition and metabolism. Mol Aspects
Med 2003;24:27–37.
[25] Wolf FI, Cittadini A. Chemistry and biochemistry of magnesium.
Mol Aspects Med 2003;24:3–9.
[26] Hartwig A. Role of magnesium in genomic stability. Mutat Res/Fund
Mol Mech Mutagen 2001;475:113–21.
[27] Revell PA, Damien E, Zhang XS, Evans P, Howlett CR. The effect of
mangesium ions on bone bonding to hydroxyapatite. Key Eng Mater
2004;254–256:447–50.
[28] Zreiqat H, Howlett CR, Zannettino A, Evans P, Schulze-Tanzil G,
Knabe C, et al. Mechanisms of magnesium-stimulated adhesion of
osteoblastic cells to commonly used orthopaedic implants. J Biomed
Mater Res 2002;62:175–84.
[29] Yamasaki Y, Yoshida Y, Okazaki M, Shimazu A, Uchida T, Kubo
T, et al. Synthesis of functionally graded MgCO3 apatite accelerating
osteoblast adhesion. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;62:99–105.
[30] Yamasaki Y, Yoshida Y, Okazaki M, Shimazu A, Kubo T, Akagawa
Y, et al. Action of FG-MgCO3 Ap-collagen composite in promoting
bone formation. Biomaterials 2003;24:4913–20.
[31] Witte F, Kaese V, Haferkamp H, Switzer E, Meyer-Lindenberg A,
Wirth CJ, et al. In vivo corrosion of four magnesium alloys and the
associated bone response. Biomaterials 2005;26:3557–63.
[32] Wen CE, Mabuchi M, Yamada Y, Shimojima K, Chino Y.
Processing of biocompatible porous Ti and Mg. Scripta Mater
2001;45:1147–53.
[33] Lambotte A. L’utilisation du magnesium comme materiel perdu dans
l’osteosynthèse. Bull Mém Soc Nat Chir 1932;28:1325–34.
[34] Troitskii VV, Tsitrin DN. The resorbing metallic alloy ‘Osteosinthe-
zit’ as material for fastening broken bone. Khirurgiia 1944;8:41–4.
[35] McBride ED. Absorbable metal in bone surgery. J Am Med Assoc
1938;111:2464–7.
[36] Verbrugge J. Le Matériel Métallique Résorbable En Chirurgie
Osseuse. Presse Med 1934;23:460–5.
[37] Znamenskii MS. Metallic osteosynthesis by means of an apparatus
made of resorbing metal. Khirurgiia 1945;12:60–3.
[38] Scholz W. Supporting or sustaining part for implant in bone
composed of porous magnesium filled with calcium phosphate.
German patent no. 102 41 572, 2004.
[39] Witte F, Crostack HA, Nellesen J, Beckmann F. Characterization of
degradable magnesium alloys as orthopaedic implant material by
synchrotron-radiation-based microtomography. 2001. http://www-
hasylab.desy.de/science/annual_reports/2001_report/part1/contrib/
47/5461.pdf
[40] Stroganov GB, Savitsky E, Mikhailovich T, Nina M, Terekhova V,
Fedorovna V, et al. Magnesium-base alloys for use in bone surgery.
US Patent no. 3,687,135, 1972.
[41] Serre CM, Papillard M, Chavassieux P, Voegel JC, Boivin G.
Influence of magnesium substitution on a collagen-apatite biomater-
ial on the production of a calcifying matrix by human osteoblasts. J
Biomed Mater Res 1998;42:626–33.
[42] Li L, Gao J, Wang Y. Evaluation of cyto-toxicity and corrosion
behavior of alkali-heat-treated magnesium in simulated body fluid.
SurfCoat Technol 2004;185:92–8.
[43] Kuwahara H, Al-Abdullat Y, Mazaki N, Tsutsumi S, Aizawa T.
Precipitation of magnesium apatite on pure magnesium surface
during immersing in Hank’s solution. Mater Trans
2001;42(7):1317–21.
[44] Hench L. Bioactive materials: the potential for tissue regeneration.
In: Founders award, society for biomaterials, 24th annual meeting,
San Diego, CA; 22–26 April 1998. p. 511–8.
View publication stats
[45] Habibovic P, Barrere F, van Blitterswijk CA, de Groot K, Layrolle P.
Biomimetic hydroxyapatite coatings on metal implants. J Am Ceram
Soc 2002;85:517–22.
[46] Leonor IB, Ito A, Onuma K, Kanzaki N, Zhong ZP, Greenspan D, et
al. In situ study of partially crystallized bioglasss and hydroxyapatite
in vitro bioactivity using atomic force microscopy. J Biomed Mat Res
2002;62:82–8.
[47] Vallet-Regi M, Romero AM, Ragel CV, LeGeros RZ. XRD, SEM-
EDS, and FTIR studies of in vitro growth of an apatite-layer on sol-
gel glasses. J Biomed Mater Res 1999;44:416–21.
[48] Li P, Bakker D, van Blitterswijk CA. A bone-bonding polymer
induces hydroxycarbonate apatite formation in vitro. J Biomed
Mater Res 1997;34:79–86.
[49] Uchida M, Kim HM, Kokubo T. Apatite-forming ability of sodium-
containing titania gels in a simulated body fluid. J Am Ceram Soc
2001;84:2969–74.
[50] Jonasova L, Muller F, Helebrant A, Strnad J, Greil P. Biomimetic
apatite formation on chemically treated titanium. Biomaterials
2004;25:1187–94.
[51] Ma J, Wong H, Kong LB, Peng KW. Biomimetic processing of
nanocrystallite bioactive apatite coating on titanium. Nanotechnol-
ogy 2003;14:619–23.
[52] Siebers MC, Brugge PJ, Walboomers XF, Jansen JA. Integrins as
linker proteins between osteoblasts and bone replacing materials. A
critical review. Biomaterials 2005;26:137–46.
[53] Sampathkumaran U, DeGuire MR, Wang R. Hydroxyapatite
coatings on titanium. Adv Eng Mater 2001;3:401–3.
[54] Vasudev DV, Ricci JL, Sabatino C, Li P, Parsons JR. In vivo
evaluation of a biomimetic apatite coating grown on titanium
surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 2004;69A:629–36.
[55] Schliephake H, Scharnweber D, Dard M, Robler S, Sweing A,
Huttman C. Biological performance of biomimetic calcium phos-
phate coating of titanium implants in the dog mandible. J Biomed
Mater Res 2003;64A:225–34.
[56] Panjian L. Biomimetic nano-apatite coating capable of promoting
bone ingrowth. J Biomed Mater Res 2003;66A:79–85.
[57] Kuroda S, Virdi AS, Li P, Healy KE, Sumner DR. A low temperature
biomimetic calcium phosphate surface enhances early implant
fixation in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res 2004;70A:66–73.
[58] Shaw BA. Corrosion resistance of magnesium alloys. In: Stephen D,
editor. ASM handbook volume 13a: corrosion: fundamentals, testing
and protection. UK: ASM Int.; 2003.
[59] Kaesel VT, Bach PT, Haferkamp H, Witte F, Windhagen H.
Approach to control the corrosion of magnesium by alloying, In:
Kainer KU, editor. Proceedings of the sixth international conference
magnesium alloys and their applications. New York: Wiley-Vch;
2004. p. 534–9.
[60] Grey JE, Luan B. Protective coatings on magnesium and its alloys—a
critical review. J Alloys Compounds 2002;336:88–113.
[61] Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and
osteogenesis. Biomaterials 2005;26:5474–91.
[62] Wen CE, Yamada Y, Shimojima K, Chino Y, Hosokawa H,
Mabuchi M. Compressibility of porous magnesium foam: depen-
dency on porosity and pore size. Mater Lett 2004;58:357–60.
[63] Banhart J. Manufacture, characterization and application of cellular
metals and metal foams. Prog Mater Sci 2001;46:559–632.
[64] Niemeyer M, Haferkamp H, Bormann D. ‘‘MF3: Magnesium foam
as bioresorbable implants’’ in DFG Priority Programme. Cellular
Metals. 2002. http://www.spp-metallschaeume.uni-erlangen.de/Pro-
jects/MF3.pdf
[65] Yamada Y, Shimojima K, Sakaguchi Y, Mabuchi M, Nakamura M,
Ashahina T, et al. Processing of cellular magnesium materials. Adv
Eng Mat 2000;2:184–7.
[66] Reifenrath J, Palm C, Mueller P, Hauser H, Crostack HA, Nellesen J,
et al. Subchondral plate reconstruction by fast degrading magnesium
scaffolds influence cartilage repair in osteochondral defects. http://
www.ors.org/Transactions/51/1347.pdf