Dual-function Nano-Mg(OH)2-gelatin coating for the antibacterial and osseointegrative enhancement of titanium dental implants: an in vitro study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/Keywords:
Nano-magnesium hydroxide, Titanium implant, Osseointegration, Antibacterial coating, GelatinAbstract
Background The growing demand for tooth replacement has increased the use of Ti dental implants the long-term success of which depends on stable osseointegration. However, this process can be compromised by bacterial biofilm formation on implant surfaces. To overcome this, a coating strategy was explored that combines magnesium—known for its bone-regenerative and antibacterial properties—in the form of nano-Mg(OH)2 with gelatin to slow magnesium degradation and support bone growth. This study evaluated the in vitro osteogenic potential and antibacterial activity of nano-Mg(OH)2–gelatin as coating material for Ti dental implant. Methodology Pure Ti plates (1×1 cm) were coated via electrospinning for in vitro evaluation. Samples were divided into four groups: 0 (control), 4, 6, and 8% nano-Mg(OH)₂-gelatin coating. Coating morphology and thickness were analyzed using SEM. Mg ion release, pH, and surface hydrophilicity (contact angle) were measured. Biological assessments included MC3T3-E1 cell proliferation, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, and antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguinis. Statistical analyses were performed using one- or two-way ANOVA (p=0.05). The optimal biologically compatible concentration of Mg(OH)2 was evaluated. Result SEM revealed a uniform, spiderweb-like coating with ~110–120 µm thickness. The coatings showed an initial burst of Mg ion release, peaking at 24 hours, followed by a gradual decline up to 240 hours. Increasing Mg content enhanced surface hydrophilicity, with the 6% group showing optimal wettability. Increasing Mg content improved MC3T3-E1 cell proliferation, peaking at 8%, whereas ALP activity was enhanced in the 6% group. Moreover, the observed decrease in S. mutans and S. sanguinis colonies suggests the 6% concentration showed balance performance as coating. Conclusion The nano-Mg(OH)₂-gelatin coating, particularly at 6% concentration, significantly enhanced the bioactivity of the Ti surface, showing dual-functional activity in vitro.
Downloads
References
1- Pengpid S, Peltzer K. The prevalence of edentulism and their related factors in Indonesia, 2014/15. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0582-7
» https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0582-7
2- Zohrabian VM, Sonick M, Hwang D, Abrahams JJ. Dental implants. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2015;36(5):415-26. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2015.09.002
» https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2015.09.002
3- Hong DG, Oh JH. Recent advances in dental implants. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;39(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s40902-017-0132-2
» https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0132-2
4- Elani HW, Starr JR, Da Silva JD, Gallucci GO. Trends in dental implant use in the U.S., 1999-2016, and projections to 2026. J Dent Res. 2018;97(13):1424-30. doi: 10.1177/0022034518792567
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034518792567
5- Avinash G, Onkar S. Dental implants and prosthetics market by products, materials and forecasts, 2020-2030 [Internet]. Allied Market Research; 2022. Available from: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/dental-implants-and-prosthetics-market
» https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/dental-implants-and-prosthetics-market
6- Brunette DM, Tengvall P, Textor M, Thomsen P, editors. Titanium in medicine: material science, surface science, engineering, biological responses and medical applications. Berlin: Springer; 2001. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-56486-4
» https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56486-4
7- Chouirfa H, Bouloussa H, Migonney V, Falentin-Daudré C. Review of titanium surface modification techniques and coatings for antibacterial applications. Acta Biomater. 2019;83:37-54. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.10.036
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.10.036
8- Almehmadi AH. Effect of magnesium-based coatings on titanium or zirconia substrates on bone regeneration and implant osseointegration: a systematic review. Front Mater. 2021;8:754697. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2021.754697
» https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2021.754697
9- Chen L, Yan X, Tan L, Zheng B, Muhammed FK, Yang K, et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of novel calcium phosphate and magnesium (CaP-Mg) bilayer-coated titanium for implantation. Surf Coat Technol. 2019;374:784-96. doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2019.06.023
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2019.06.023
10- Meng F, Yin Z, Ren X, Geng Z, Su J. Construction of local drug delivery system on titanium-based implants to improve osseointegration. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(5):1069. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14051069
» https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14051069
11- Guo T, Gulati K, Arora H, Han P, Fournier B, Ivanovski S. Race to invade: understanding soft tissue integration at the transmucosal region of titanium dental implants. Dent Mater. 2021;37(5):816-31. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.02.005
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2021.02.005
12- Binderman I, Halperin-Sternfeld M, Miselli A. The immunobiological and dense collagen fibrous connective tissue barriers: the gate to periodontal and peri-implant health and longevity. In: Periodontics and implants: contemporary scientific and clinical perspective. London: IntechOpen; 2025. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.1011461
» https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1011461
13- Wang Y, Zhang Y, Miron RJ. Health, maintenance, and recovery of soft tissues around implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(3):618-34. doi: 10.1111/cid.12343
» https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12343
14- Tardelli JD, Bagnato VS, Dos Reis AC. Bacterial adhesion strength on titanium surfaces quantified by atomic force microscopy: a systematic review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2023;12(6):994. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12060994
» https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12060994
15- Costa RC, Abdo VL, Mendes PH, Mota-Veloso I, Bertolini M, Mathew MT, et al. Microbial corrosion in titanium-based dental implants: how tiny bacteria can create a big problem? J Bio Tribo Corros. 2021;7(4):136. doi: 10.1007/s40735-021-00575-8
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s40735-021-00575-8
16- Campos Kajimoto N, Paiva Buischi Y, Mohamadzadeh M, Loomer P. The oral microbiome of peri-implant health and disease: a narrative review. Dent J (Basel). 2024;12(10):299. doi: 10.3390/dj12100299
» https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12100299
17- Salvi GE, Cosgarea R, Sculean A. Prevalence and mechanisms of peri-implant diseases. J Dent Res. 2017;96(1):31-7. doi: 10.1177/0022034516667484
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516667484
18- Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Camargo PM, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(Suppl 20)-91. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12957
» https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12957
19- Souza JG, Bertolini MM, Costa RC, Nagay BE, Dongari-Bagtzoglou A, Barão VA. NanoTargeting implant-associated infections: titanium surface loaded with antimicrobial agents. iScience. 2021;24(2):102008. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.102008
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.102008
20- Galarraga-Vinueza ME, Pagni S, Finkelman M, Schoenbaum T, Chambrone L. Prevalence, incidence, systemic, behavioral, and patient-related risk factors and indicators for peri-implant diseases: an AO/AAP systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2025;96(6):587-633. doi: 10.1002/JPER.24-0154
» https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.24-0154
21- Sridhar S, Wang F, Wilson TG, Palmer K, Valderrama P, Rodrigues DC. The role of bacterial biofilm and mechanical forces in modulating dental implant failures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019;92:118-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.01.012
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.01.012
22- Wada M, Mameno T, Otsuki M, Kani M, Tsujioka Y, Ikebe K. Prevalence and risk indicators for peri-implant diseases: a literature review. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2021;57:78-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2021.05.002
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2021.05.002
23- Armellini D, Reynolds MA, Harro JM, Molly L. Biofilm formation on natural teeth and dental implants: what is the difference? In: Shirtliff M, Leid JG, editors. The role of biofilms in device-related infections. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p. 109-22. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68119-9_5
» https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68119-9_5
24- Dong H, Liu H, Zhou N, Li Q, Yang G. Surface modified techniques and emerging functional coating of dental implants. Coatings. 2020;10(11):1012. doi: 10.3390/coatings10111012
» https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10111012
25- Lu X, Wu Z, Xu K, Wang X, Wang S, Qiu H, et al. Multifunctional coatings of titanium implants toward promoting osseointegration and preventing infection: recent developments. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:783816. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.783816
» https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.783816
26- Cai X, Cai J, Ma K, Huang P, Gong L, Huang D, et al. Fabrication and characterization of Mg-doped chitosan-gelatin nanocompound coatings for titanium surface functionalization. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2016;27(10):954-71. doi: 10.1080/09205063.2016.1170416
27- Feng H, Wang G, Jin W, Zhang X, Huang Y, Gao A, et al. Systematic study of inherent antibacterial properties of magnesium-based biomaterials. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016;8(15):9662-73. doi: 10.1021/acsami.6b02241
28- Li X, Gao P, Wan P, Pei Y, Shi L, Fan B, et al. Novel bio-functional magnesium coating on porous Ti6Al4V orthopaedic implants: in vitro and in vivo study. Sci Rep. 2017;7:40755. doi: 10.1038/srep40755
» https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40755
29- Babuska V, Kasi PB, Chocholata P, Wiesnerova L, Dvorakova J, Vrzakova R, et al. Nanomaterials in bone regeneration. Appl Sci. 2022;12(13):6793. doi: 10.3390/app12136793
» https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136793
30- Meng Y, Zhang D, Jia X, Xiao K, Lin X, Yang Y, et al. Antimicrobial activity of nano-magnesium hydroxide against oral bacteria and application in root canal sealer. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26. doi: 10.12659/MSM.922920
» https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.922920
31- Tiyyagura HR, Fuchs-Godec R, Gorgieva S, Arthanari S, Mohan MK, Kokol V. Biomimetic gelatine coating for less corrosive and surface bioactive Mg-9Al-1Zn alloys. J Mater Res. 2018;33(10):1449-62. doi: 10.1557/jmr.2018.65
» https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2018.65
32- Aoki H, Miyoshi H, Yamagata Y. Electrospinning of gelatin nanofiber scaffolds with mild neutral cosolvents for use in tissue engineering. Polym J. 2015;47(3):267-77. doi: 10.1038/pj.2014.94
» https://doi.org/10.1038/pj.2014.94
33- Amly DA, Hajardhini P, Jonarta AL, Yulianto HD, Susilowati H. Enhancement of pyocyanin production by the subinhibitory concentration of royal jelly in Pseudomonas aeruginosa F1000Res. 2021;10:14. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.27915.4
» https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27915.4
34- Nasiruddin U, Rama Krishna L, Parfenov EV, Rameshbabu N. Bioceramic (HA/BG) particles incorporated PCL-PEO hybrid coated ZM21 magnesium alloy for temporary orthopaedic implant application. Ceram Int. 2025;51(29 Pt A):60434-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2025.10.243
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2025.10.243
35- Maj L, Muhaffel F, Jarzebska A, Trelka A, Balin K, Bieda M, et al. Unveiling the mechanisms of coating formation during micro-arc oxidation of titanium in Na2HPO4 electrolyte. Surf Coat Technol. 2024;476:130224. doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2023.130224
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2023.130224
36- Rokosz K, Hryniewicz T, Dudek L. Phosphate porous coatings enriched with selected elements via PEO treatment on titanium and its alloys: a review. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(11):2468. doi: 10.3390/ma13112468
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13112468
37- Fattah-alhosseini A, Chaharmahali R, Kaseem M. Corrosion behavior amelioration of Ti-based alloys by the hybrid plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO)/polymer coatings: a review. Hybrid Adv. 2024;5:100151. doi: 10.1016/j.hybadv.2024.100151
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hybadv.2024.100151
38- Cardoso GC, Grandini RC, Rau JV. Comprehensive review of PEO coatings on titanium alloys for biomedical implants. J Mater Res Technol. 2024;31:311-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.06.068
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.06.068
39- Garcia-Cabezón C, Rodríguez-Méndez ML, Amigó Borrás V, Bayón R, Salvo-Comino C, Garcia-Hernandez C, et al. Improvements in tribological and anticorrosion performance of porous Ti-6Al-4V via PEO coating. Friction. 2021;9(5):1303-18. doi: 10.1007/s40544-020-0480-2
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-020-0480-2
40- Agarwal S, Wendorff JH, Greiner A. Use of electrospinning technique for biomedical applications. Polymer. 2008;49(26):5603-21. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2008.09.014
41- Keerthiga G, Prasad MJ, Vijayshankar D, Singh Raman RK. Polymeric coatings for magnesium alloys for biodegradable implant application: a review. Materials (Basel). 2023;16(13):4700. doi: 10.3390/ma16134700
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134700
42- Moreno L, Wang C, Lamaka SV, Zheludkevich ML, Rodríguez-Hernández J, Arrabal R, et al. Ciprofloxacin release and corrosion behaviour of a hybrid PEO/PCL coating on Mg3Zn0.4Ca alloy. J Funct Biomater. 2023;14(2):65. doi: 10.3390/jfb14020065
» https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020065
43- Wang S, Zhao X, Hsu Y, He Y, Wang F, Yang F, et al. Surface modification of titanium implants with Mg-containing coatings to promote osseointegration. Acta Biomater. 2023;169:19-44. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.07.048
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2023.07.048
44- Singh AK, Tsotsas E. Influence of polydispersity and breakage on stochastic simulations of spray fluidized bed agglomeration. Chem Eng Sci. 2022;247:117022. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2021.117022
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2021.117022
45- Rahim MI, Eifler R, Rais B, Mueller PP. Alkalization is responsible for antibacterial effects of corroding magnesium. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103(11):3526-32. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35503
46- Song GL, Atrens A. Understanding magnesium corrosion: a framework for improved alloy performance. Adv Eng Mater. 2003;5(12):837-58. doi: 10.1002/adem.200310405
» https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.200310405
47- Zhao Q, Yi L, Jiang L, Ma Y, Lin H, Dong J. Osteogenic activity and antibacterial ability on titanium surfaces modified with magnesium-doped titanium dioxide coating. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2019;14(9):1109-33. doi: 10.2217/nnm-2018-0413
» https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2018-0413
48- Nie X, Zhang X, Lei B, Shi Y, Yang J. Regulation of magnesium matrix composite materials on bone immune microenvironment and osteogenic mechanism. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:842706. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.842706
» https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.842706
49- Yu Y, Jin G, Xue Y, Wang D, Liu X, Sun J. Multifunctions of dual Zn/Mg ion co-implanted titanium on osteogenesis, angiogenesis and bacteria inhibition for dental implants. Acta Biomater. 2017;49:590-603. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.11.067
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.11.067
50- Galow AM, Rebl A, Koczan D, Bonk SM, Baumann W, Gimsa J. Increased osteoblast viability at alkaline pH in vitro provides a new perspective on bone regeneration. Biochem Biophys Rep. 2017;10:17-25. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2017.02.001
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrep.2017.02.001
51- Kondo A, Kurosawa R, Ryu J, Matsuoka M, Takeuchi M. Investigation on the mechanisms of Mg(OH)2 dehydration and MgO hydration by near-infrared spectroscopy. J Phys Chem C. 2021;125(20):10937-47. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c01470
» https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c01470
52- Erakovic S, Jankovic A, Veljovic D, Palcevskis E, Mitric M, Stevanovic T, et al. Corrosion stability and bioactivity in simulated body fluid of silver/hydroxyapatite and silver/hydroxyapatite/lignin coatings on titanium obtained by electrophoretic deposition. J Phys Chem B. 2013;117(6):1633-43. doi: 10.1021/jp305252a
53- Dammar I, Riksavianti F, Jubhari EH. The role of hydrophilic implant surfaces to enhance the osseointegration process. Makassar Dent J. 2024;13(2):251-4.
54- Arima Y, Iwata H. Effect of wettability and surface functional groups on protein adsorption and cell adhesion using well-defined mixed self-assembled monolayers. Biomaterials. 2007;28(20):3074-82. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.013
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.013
55- Al-Azzam N, Alazzam A. Micropatterning of cells via adjusting surface wettability using plasma treatment and graphene oxide deposition. PLoS One. 2022;17(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269914
» https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269914
56- Jin J, Jaspers RT, Wu G, Korfage JA, Klein-Nulend J, Bakker AD. Shear stress modulates osteoblast cell and nucleus morphology and volume. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(21):8361. doi: 10.3390/ijms21218361
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21218361
57- Fan X, Du J, Li Y, Duan K, Liu G. Electrophoretic deposition of magnesium oxide coating on micro-arc oxidized titanium for antibacterial activity and biocompatibility. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):901. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04390-4
» https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04390-4
58- Liu Y, Wu J, Zhang H, Wu Y, Tang C. Covalent immobilization of the phytic acid-magnesium layer on titanium improves the osteogenic and antibacterial properties. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2021;203:111768. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.111768
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.111768
59- Rahmati M, Silva EA, Reseland JE, Heyward CA, Haugen HJ. Biological responses to physicochemical properties of biomaterial surface. Chem Soc Rev. 2020;49(15):5178-5224. doi: 10.1039/D0CS00103A
60- Beck GR Jr, Sullivan EC, Moran E, Zerler B. Relationship between alkaline phosphatase levels, osteopontin expression, and mineralization in differentiating MC3T3-E1 osteoblasts. J Cell Biochem. 1998;68(2):269–80. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4644(19980201)68:2<269::AID-JCB13>3.0.CO;2-A
61- Wang J, Ma XY, Feng YF, Ma ZS, Ma TC, Zhang Y, et al. Magnesium ions promote the biological behaviour of rat calvarial osteoblasts by activating the PI3K/Akt signalling pathway. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2017;179(2):284-93. doi: 10.1007/s12011-017-0948-8
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-0948-8
62- Liu J, Liu J, Attarilar S, Wang C, Tamaddon M, Yang C, et al. Nano-modified titanium implant materials: a way toward improved antibacterial properties. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:576969. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.576969
» https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.576969
63- Echeverry-Rendón M, Stancic B, Muizer K, Duque V, Calderon DJ, Echeverria F, et al. Cytotoxicity assessment of surface-modified magnesium hydroxide nanoparticles. ACS Omega. 2022;7(21):17528-37. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c06515
» https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c06515
64- Hassan N, Krieg T, Kopp A, Bach AD, Kröger N. Challenges and pitfalls of research designs involving magnesium-based biomaterials: an overview. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(11):6242. doi: 10.3390/ijms25116242
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25116242
65- Tan X, Wang Z, Yang X, Yu P, Sun M, Zhao Y, et al. Enhancing cell adhesive and antibacterial activities of glass-fibre-reinforced polyetherketoneketone through Mg and Ag PIII. Regen Biomater. 2023;10. doi: 10.1093/rb/rbad066
» https://doi.org/10.1093/rb/rbad066
66- Lew HP, Quah SY, Lui JN, Bergenholtz G, Yu VS, Tan KS. Isolation of alkaline-tolerant bacteria from primary infected root canals. J Endod. 2015;41(4):451-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.12.003
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.12.003
67- Díaz-Garrido N, Lozano CP, Kreth J, Giacaman RA. Competition and caries on enamel of a dual-species biofilm model with Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguinis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86(21). doi: 10.1128/AEM.01262-20
» https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01262-20
68- Rodríguez-Sánchez J, Pacha-Olivenza MA, González-Martín ML. Bactericidal effect of magnesium ions over planktonic and sessile Staphylococcus epidermidis and Escherichia coli Mater Chem Phys. 2019;221:342-8. doi: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2018.09.050
69- Bhattacharya P, Dey A, Neogi S. An insight into the mechanism of antibacterial activity by magnesium oxide nanoparticles. J Mater Chem B. 2021;9(26):5329-39. doi: 10.1039/D1TB00875G
» https://doi.org/10.1039/D1TB00875G
70- Xia D, Shi X, Chen K, Hao A, Iseri Y. Understanding the mechanisms behind the antibacterial activity of magnesium hydroxide nanoparticles against sulfate-reducing bacteria in sediments. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):21831. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-72516-7
» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72516-7
71- Qin H, Zhao Y, Cheng M, Wang Q, Wang Q, Wang J, et al. Anti-biofilm properties of magnesium metal via alkaline pH. RSC Adv. 2015;5(28):21434-44. doi: 10.1039/C5RA00027K
72- Suresh S, Thambidurai S, Arumugam J, Kandasamy M, Pugazhenthiran N, Balaji D, et al. Antibacterial activity and photocatalytic oxidative performance of zinc oxide nanorods biosynthesized using Aerva lanata leaf extract. Inorg Chem Commun. 2022;139:109398. doi: 10.1016/j.inoche.2022.109398
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inoche.2022.109398
73- Widyasrini DA, Annisa M, Sunarintyas S, Samaranayake L, Siswomihardjo W. Magnesium infusion on dental implants and its impact on osseointegration and biofilm development: a review. Eur J Dent. 2025;19(4):869-81. doi: 10.1055/s-0045-1806958
» https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1806958
74- Wang Q, Jin S, Lin X, Zhang Y, Ren L, Yang K. Cytotoxic effects of biodegradation of pure Mg and MAO-Mg on tumor cells of MG63 and KB. J Mater Sci Technol. 2014;30(5):487-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2014.03.004
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Todo o conteúdo do periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons do tipo atribuição CC-BY.
