Page 113 - IJB-8-3
P. 113

Yang, et al.
                  A












                  B





















           Figure 9. (A) The cross-sectional views of Mg and Sc-containing Mg alloys after immersion 168 h in SBF. (B) The schematic diagram of
           the corrosion mechanism of mMg-Sc alloy.
           solution, which was accompanied by the generation of   incubation  time  extending,  the green-stained  live cells
           Mg  and Sc  ions. Then, the Mg  ions combined with   were increased progressively, whereas red-stained
                     3+
              2+
                                        2+
           OH  ions to form Mg(OH) , while Sc  reacted with    patches for dead cells were rarely detected.  Besides,
                                             3+
              −
                                   2
           oxygen ions to form Sc O . Due to chemical instability,   more spindle-shaped  cells  were observed in mMg-
                               2
                                 3
           Mg(OH)  was readily converted to MgCl  by chloride   Sc group after 7  days’ culture as compared with the
                  2
                                               2
           ions.  The generation and decomposition of Mg(OH)    other two groups. The CCK-8 assay was carried out to
                                                          2
           was a dynamic equilibrium process. Thus, the originally   quantitatively study the biocompatibility of Sc-containing
           generated Mg(OH)  would be gradually replaced by    Mg alloys, as displayed in Figure 10B. The cell viability
                            2
           Sc O , resulting in a more stable and compact corrosion   of all samples increased with the decreasing of extracts
             2
               3
           layer.                                              concentration. As compared with Mg and Mg-Sc alloy,
                                                               the mMg-Sc alloy had the maximum  cell  viability  at
           3.5. Biocompatibility                               the same extract concentration and time. This might be
           The degradation of Mg alloys in vivo would release metal   attributed to the better corrosion resistance of the mMg-
           ions into the surrounding tissues, creating the risk of   Sc alloy, which was consistent with the results reported
           implant-related infections [58-60] . Therefore, it was essential   in the previous studies. The better corrosion resistance of
           to assess the cytotoxicity of the rare earth element Sc,   Mg alloys would directly impact the cell viability, as they
           which was added in Mg alloys. The in vitro cytotoxicity   released a relatively low concentration of metal ions into
           of the  high  Sc-containing  Mg alloys  was evaluated  by   the cell culture medium. Therefore, it was clearly proved
           measuring the viability  of BMSC cells after 1, 4, and   that the Sc-containing Mg alloy exhibits no adverse
           7 days exposure to a cell culturing medium, expressed   effects  on  cell  viability  in vitro and had an adequate
           as a percentage of cell viability in the control group.   biocompatibility. Prior studies have reported that the total
           Based on ISO standard 10993-5, the biodegradable alloys   Mg ion concentration in human body should be below
           were identified as non-cytotoxic, as the cell viability was   480 μg/mL, and the Sc ion concentration below 300 μg/
           higher than 70% of the control group [61-63] .      mL was acceptable [64,65] . In this work, the concentrations
               As shown in Figure 10A, the fluorescent images of   of Mg and Sc ions detected in the mMg-Sc alloy were
           live/dead cell viability assays were used for qualitative   18 and 12 μg/mL, respectively, which were far below the
           assessment of the biocompatibility. Obviously, with   maximum acceptable values in human body.
                                       International Journal of Bioprinting (2022)–Volume 8, Issue 3       105
   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118