Comparison between the SBF response of hydroxyapatite coatings deposited using both a plasma-spray and a novel co-incident micro-blasting technique
Files in This Item:
|Download||SBF response of hydroxyapatite coatings deposited using both a plasma-spray and a novel co-incident DONE.pdf||298.87 kB||Adobe PDF|
|Title:||Comparison between the SBF response of hydroxyapatite coatings deposited using both a plasma-spray and a novel co-incident micro-blasting technique||Authors:||Barry, James N.; Dowling, Denis P.||Permanent link:||http://hdl.handle.net/10197/4693||Date:||Oct-2011||Online since:||2013-10-04T07:37:30Z||Abstract:||This paper reports on the response of hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings, fabricated using two deposition technologies, to immersion in simulated body fluid (SBF). The deposition methods used were: plasma spray, a commercial standard, and CoBlast, a novel low temperature microblast technique. In the case of the latter, HA coatings are deposited by simultaneous blasting HA and abrasive powders concentrically at a metallic substrate, resulting in a thin layer of HA (approx. 2.5 μm thick). Groups of the CoBlast and plasma spray HA coatings were immersed in 7 ml of SBF solution for 1, 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28 days, and were subsequently removed and examined for any alterations caused by the SBF solution. It was noted from this study that the CoBlast HA coatings appeared to undergo a two step calcium phosphate recrystallisation process; initial homogenous nucleation and subsequent heterogeneous nucleation. Conversely recrystallisation on the plasma spray coatings appeared to proceed largely through a heterogeneous nucleation process. Two factors that may influence the differences in HA recrystallisation is the presence of amorphous HA resulting in rapid dissolution, and/or the significantly lower surface area (roughness) offered to the SBF solution by the CoBlast coatings. The interpretation of recrystallisation mechanisms from this preliminary study is limited however by the differences in coating morphology and thickness (27 versus 2 μm) for the plasma spray and CoBlast HA coatings respectively.||Funding Details:||Science Foundation Ireland||Type of material:||Journal Article||Publisher:||Trans Tech Publications||Journal:||Key Engineering Materials||Volume:||493-494||Start page:||483||End page:||488||Copyright (published version):||2011 Trans Tech Publications||Keywords:||Biomaterials/Bioceramics; Hydroxyapatite coatings; Simulated body fluid; Plasma spray; CoBlast||DOI:||10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.493-494.483||Language:||en||Status of Item:||Peer reviewed||This item is made available under a Creative Commons License:||https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ie/|
|Appears in Collections:||Mechanical & Materials Engineering Research Collection|
Show full item record
Page view(s) 501,579
If you are a publisher or author and have copyright concerns for any item, please email email@example.com and the item will be withdrawn immediately. The author or person responsible for depositing the article will be contacted within one business day.