Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 72–79

www.elsevier.com/locate/jma

Review
Magnesium matrix composites for biomedical applications: A review
Vijay Kumar Bommala, Mallarapu Gopi Krishna∗, Ch Tirumala Rao
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur-522510, Andhra Pradesh, India
Received 19 April 2018; accepted 13 November 2018
Available online 26 December 2018

Abstract
In recent years, a new wave of bioactive, biocompatibility and biodegradable metallic materials were developed for orthopedic applications.
Pure Magnesium, Magnesium alloys, Magnesium alloy-based composites are extensive material to the biomedical applications, by virtue of its
high biocompatibility and reasonable strength. Pure magnesium, Magnesium alloys can corrode too fast during the physiological conditions
and loses their properties before bone heal. The new era for the development of magnesium-based composites can satisfy the orthopedic
applications. Magnesium-based composites, as bio-materials, can produce adjustable mechanical properties like Ultimate tensile strength,
ductility, elastic modulus, and corrosion resistance in the physiological conditions. In the Mg based composites, the matrix materials are
biomedical magnesium alloys base like Mg–Ca, Mg–Al, Mg–Zn, and Mg–REE alloy and The reinforcements are based on hydroxyapatite
(HAP), calcium polyphosphate (CPP), and β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) particles. This comprehensive review is focused on different
grades of biodegradable magnesium matrix composites including their mechanical properties and corrosion resistance.
© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chongqing University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer review under responsibility of Chongqing University

Keywords: Magnesium composites; Biodegradable; Biocompatible; Mechanical properties; Biological corrosion.

1. Introduction the cases, it needs a second surgery to remove the implants

Bone is a natural composite in a living tissue, which con-
tains about 30 Wt% matrix, 60 Wt% minerals, and 10 Wt% of
water. Whenever this bone may fracture, it needs a surgery to
implant extra material which may carry the entire body load
and to heal the bone fracture, that material was coined as a
biomaterial. Polymers, ceramics, metallic materials, and com-
posites are used as biomaterials. The biomaterials must have
tensile strength, ductility, and capacity to absorb strain energy
as compared to other metals. These properties may satisfy the
orthopedic load bearing applications and fixation devices such
as bone plates, joint replacements, screws, rods, wires, dental
implants and also cardiovascular stents [1]. Conventional met-
als like titanium, stainless steel, cobalt-chromium alloys are
having good biocompatibility and these are used as orthopedic
implants in fracture surgeries. The problem with these con-
ventional metals was not biodegradable; therefore, in most of
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mgopi.anu@gmail.com (M.G. Krishna).
from the body after tissue heals. In general, the implants are
present in the body even after the fracture tissue has healed,
which causes infection by the corrosion of the implant mate-
rial at the physiological environment. A new era is started to
innovate the biodegradable implant materials which contain
excellent corrosion resistivity to adapt to the physiological
environment. These implants should satisfy the mechanical
properties to withstand biomechanical forces. Biodegradable
materials are those that will eventually corrode in vivo and
vitro condition. On that biological condition, these materials
completely dissolve in the lead to satisfying the mission to
assist the tissue heals with no implant residues. By this dis-
solution occurrence, a non-toxic oxide forms that it is harm-
lessly excreted in the urine. Therefore, the major components
of biodegradable materials are those metallic elements that
can’t be metabolized by the human body and exhibit suitable
degradation rates in the human body [2].
Biodegradable materials can be classified as biodegradable
pure metals, alloys and metal matrix composite (MMC’s). The
Metal matrix composites as biodegradable materials those are

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jma.2018.11.001
2213-9567/© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chongqing University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer review under responsibility of Chongqing University
 V.K. Bommala, M.G. Krishna and C.T. Rao / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 72–79
Table 1
The comparison of mechanical properties of Mg composites to bone and other metals [5].
Material/Tissue Density (g/cm3 )
Cortical bone 1.8–2.0
Cancellous bone 1.0–1.4
Ti–6Al–4V 4.43
316 L stainless steel 8.0
Pure Mg, annealed 1.74
AZ91D Mg alloy 1.81
exhibits the properties like tensile strength, yield strength and
Young’s modulus, as well as corrosion resistance by choos-
ing the suitable reinforcement [2]. The aim of this paper
will be discussing biocompatible, biodegradable metal ma-
trix composite particularly Magnesium matrix composites for
orthopedic applications. The composite contains at least two
components which include matrix and reinforcement. In the
biodegradable composites, all elements should be biodegrad-
able and non-toxic to the human body condition.
Magnesium is the lightest metal which is having the den-
sity of 1.74–2.0 g/cm3 , which is 33% lighter than aluminium,
77% lighter than steel. The magnesium material has a high
strength-to-weight ratio and also density is very similar to
bone density (1.84 g/cm3 ). Magnesium (Mg) alloys and its
composites have been considered as potential alternatives and
used as conventional implant materials because of their attrac-
tive biodegradation and mechanical properties [3–5]. Table. 1
shows the mechanical properties of Magnesium materials to
the bone and other metals. The degradation rate is extremely
high in physiological condition; it may lead to deterioration
of mechanical integrity of implant before complete healing
of fractured bone tissue and also releases a large amount of
hydrogen gases which delays the healing of fractured bone tis-
sue. Due to these major issues pure magnesium, magnesium
alloys, and magnesium composites have been developed for
bio applications. Magnesium alloys mostly used in biomedical
applications are Mg–Sn, Mg–Ca, Mg–Zn, Mg–Si, Mg–Sr, and
Mg–Zr, which are non-toxic in a physiological environment.
Along with this magnesium matrix, composites exhibit appre-
ciable mechanical strength and corrosion resistance. The se-
lection of reinforcement materials is calcium phosphate-based
ceramics [6–10], calcium polyphosphate particles (CPP) [11],
hydroxyapatite (HAP) [12] and Tricalcium phosphate (ß-TCP)
[13].
1.1. Redox reaction of magnesium material
Alloys of Magnesium metal undergo deterioration by var-
ious Redox reactions, which are accessed by the alloying
elements. Practically the decay of magnesium in aqueous
medium turns out magnesium hydroxide and hydrogen gas.
The overall reaction is as follows [14,16]:
Mg+H2 O → Mg (OH )2 +H2
Generally, the metal zinc is used as an alloying agent,
because it shows the capability to dislocate hydrogen ions
73
UTS (MPa) Yield stress Elastic modulus
(MPa) (GPa)
35–283 104.9–114.3 5–23
1.5–38 – 0.01–1.57
830–1025 760–880 114
450–650 200–300 190
160 90 45
240–250 160 45
from the aqueous medium, then the following reaction occurs
[17,18]:
Zn+H2 O → Zn (OH )2 +H2
Zinc ions will be removed by the magnesium metal from
aqueous solution [19,20]:
Mg + Zn2+ → Zn + Mg2+
As observed from the above reactions, the rapid corro-
sion rate of magnesium metal produces hydrogen gas with an
aqueous solution; because of this hydrogen evaluation usage
of magnesium alloys as implants are undesirable. To over-
come this problem slow rate of corrosion of magnesium alloy
is more advisable.
1.2. Applications
The capability of magnesium-based metals has various
numbers of biomedical applications due to its high degrada-
tion rate. Past research and current studies are paying atten-
tion to biodegradable biomaterials contact with cellular mech-
anisms, and how they are biologically influenced by the cor-
rosion byproducts [15,21]. Present studies explore how re-
inforcement elements manipulate the corrosion behavior of
biodegradable orthopedic applications [22]. For orthopedic
applications, magnesium metal has been reached to increase
bone strength and interfacial potency when implanted [24].
Magnesium metals can be used for various types of fascina-
tion devices for orthopedic surgeries, such as plates, screws,
and fasteners. Current studies have shown that the implanta-
tion of a magnesium device shows nominal changes to blood
composition within a 6-month study post-implantation with-
out causing damage to excretory organs like the liver or the
kidneys [23].
2. Evolution of biodegradable implant materials
Metallic metals have been radically growing in biomedical
applications proposed for development of orthopedic implants
(hip replacement, joint replacement, prosthesis etc.) and tem-
porary implants (wires, rods, pins, plates, screws etc.) [24].
The Magnesium material as biodegradable implants in vivo
and vitro conditions was already used more than a century
[25]. Magnesium composites had excellent biocompatibility
as compared to other metallic metal composites. Magnesium
is the fourth most abundant element present in the human
74 V.K. Bommala, M.G. Krishna and C.T. Rao / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 72–79

Table 2
Implant metals applications, advantages, and disadvantages [28,31–35].

Materials Advantages Disadvantages Applications

316l Excellent fabrication property, High modulus, poor wear and corrosion resistance, Bone plates, screws, pins, and wires
stainless toughness, easily available and low stress shielding effect and allergic reaction etc
steel cost, and accepted biocompatibility
Co–Cr Better in terms of resistance to Quite expensive, difficult to machine, Shorter term implants-bone plates
alloys corrosion, fatigue and wear. and wires, total hip replacements
High strength, stress shielding effect, high modulus, toxicity due to
long term biocompatibility Cr, Co and Ni ions release
Ti alloys Outstanding resistance to corrosion, Poor wear resistance, poor bending ductility, Fracture fixation plates, fasteners,
lower modulus, expensive nails, screws, rods and wires, Total
stronger than stainless steels, Joint Replacement (TJR)
light weight,
biocompatible
Mg alloys Biocompatibility, Hydrogen evolution during degradation Bone screws, plates, pins, stents etc
biodegradable,
bioresorbable,
nearer density, young’s modulus of
bone (E = 10–30 GPa),
low stress shielding effect,
light in weight

body and it acts as an essential nutrient for human’s life
[26–30]. Magnesium composites are valuable material over
the other implant materials viz. Stainless steel, Co–Cr, and Ti-
tanium alloys are outlined in Table 2 [28,31–35]. The metallic
response of commercially available AZ91D magnesium alloy
was investigated in vivo and vitro conditions and proposed to
use as a matrix in magnesium composites for orthopedic ap-
plications [36]. Magnesium material has high corrosion rate
and it releases of Hydrogen (H2 ) gas, which was existed in
few studies in the middle of last century. However, the most
of the researchers were focused on Mg composites in the
early 2000s, along with corrosion rate in Mg materials. The
modern techniques were developed to control the corrosion
rate of Mg material at the same time it can heal the frac-
ture tissue without the need for secondary surgery to remove
the implanted material. The most of the researchers focus
on biodegradable Mg-based materials is developing to design
the implants for orthopedic applications as well cardiovascu-
lar stents. The composite contains at least two components
which include matrix and reinforcement. The uncertain toxi-
city may develop it will be coming out by the urinary system
for the purpose of reducing the itches or any other damage
occurred on the human body.
For the above condition, an extreme concern should be
taken for selecting the biological reinforcements to magne-
sium composites. These magnesium composites may exhibit
the biomechanical properties as well as corrosion rate in the
biological condition.
3. The process to enhance the mechanical properties and
corrosion rate
Pure Magnesium having very high degradation rate in the
biological environment which causes the implant metal can
degrade before heals the tissue. Intended for this cause Mg-
based alloys were developed to increase the mechanical prop-
erties as well as degradation performance. Selections of alloy-
ing elements were playing a vital role in biodegradable Mg
alloys, to enhance the mechanical properties and exhibit the
biocompatibility in the biological environment. The adding of
alloying elements in pure magnesium may improve grain re-
finement and strengthen the solid solution. The mainly used
alloy elements in magnesium and their effect on mechanical
properties were presented in Table 3 [37,38]. To step up the
biocompatibility of Mg alloys in the biological environment
which was based on strengthening ability, toxicity and degra-
dation rate were shown in Fig. 2.
Biocompatibility is the key factor for selection of degrad-
able metals and its alloys in a biological environment. The
implant materials either pure or alloys should be non-toxic
and easily degrade and dissolved into the surrounding tissues
[39]. Alloying elements can be classified as toxic, allergic and
nutrient-based elements which are present in the human body
[40–42].
1) Toxic: Ba, Pb, Be, Th, Cd.
2) Allergic: Al, Ce, Cr, Co, Cu, La, Ni, Pr, V,
3) Nutrients: Ca, Mn, Sn, Sr, Zn.
3.1. Presence of Mg in human body
Magnesium is solitary macro mineral presented in the hu-
man body environment. In generally a human body required
320–420 mg of magnesium minerals were needed in a day.
These magnesium minerals found in a human body 65% at
bones and teeth, the remaining 35% was presented in blood,
body fluids, organs and other tissues. Magnesium had a den-
sity of 1.74–1.8 g/cm3 , which was very lightest metallic ma-
terial as compared to other metals. It’s having excellent me-
chanical properties and biocompatibility. Density and elas-
tic modulus of pure magnesium (41–45 GPA) is nearer to
the cortical bone (3–20 GPA) [43,44]. The other implant
 V.K. Bommala, M.G. Krishna and C.T. Rao / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 72–79
Table 3
Effects of alloy elements in biocompatible Mg alloys [37,38].
Alloy Mechanical properties
elements
Ag Increase tensile strength, corrosion resistance,
antibacterial effect
Ca Increase corrosion resistance and grain
refinement
Mn Corrosion resistance improved
Sr Enhance bone mass and reduce the rate of
fractures. Improves corrosion resistance and
grain refinement
Sn Increase compressive strength and corrosion
resistance
Zn Enhance yield stress; reduce H2 gas
development during bio-corrosion
material has the density as well as elastic modules is high
as compared to the cortical bones, due to this mismatch may
lead the implant carrying problems (load acting) and causes
trauma defending of the bone. With this biological incom-
patibility, the medical issues were raised like early implant
loosening, damage to the healing process and chronic inflam-
mation [45]. Magnesium-based implants were similar to bone
density, so there were no medical issues as compared to other
metallic material [46]. The extensive applications of Mg and
its alloys were constrained by their degradation rate and suc-
cessive losses in mechanical properties at pH levels (7.4–7.6)
on chloride environment. Also, rapid formation of hydrogen
gas bubbles could be a negative effect on Mg-based implants
[39].
Mg-based alloys possess excellent tensile strength, stiffness
which are nearer to human bones. This gives more interest to
utilize as biodegradable materials in orthopedic applications.
Next advancement of Mg alloys is surface treatment, which
reduces the degradation rate of implant material until healing
the fractured tissue. Once the coat is degraded in the physio-
logical environment the alloy was going to degrade drastically
before healing the tissue, this is impacts on coated biological
implant materials.
The main focus of the review is to enhance the mechanical
as well as corrosion property for orthopedic implant materi-
als. A new ere for this is developing of magnesium com-
posite. In this composite nutritional elements were used as
reinforcement to the strengthening of properties. Selection of
reinforcement plays a very significant role in the composite
which may possess self-resorbable nature to heal the tissue.
Mg composites were developing to improve the mechanical
properties, degradation rate in the biological environment.
4. Biodegradable Mg based composites
Composite as the name implies, the composite contains at
least two components which include matrix and reinforce-
ment. In biodegradable composites, all components within
the composite must be biocompatible, biodegradable and non-
toxic to the physiological condition. Biodegradable materials
75
Path physiology Toxicology
Blood serum 11–26 g/L Uncertain
Presented in bones and teeth, Metabolic disorder
blood serum 0.91–0.99 mg/L
Blood serum level < 0.8 g/L, effects cellular Neurological disorder
functions, immune system, bone growth
Presented 140 mg in human body 99% Neurological disorder
presented in the bones
Located in higher levels 9–140 g/L in liver Carcinogenic
Required blood serum 12.4–17.4 mol/L level, Neuro venomous and obstruct in
necessary to enzyme and immune system bone development
can be classified as biodegradable pure metals, alloys and
metal matrix composite (MMC’s). The Metal matrix com-
posite as biodegradable materials is having good mechanical
properties (ultimate tensile strength, Young’s modulus, and
yield strength) as well as corrosion resistance by choosing
the suitable composite. The composite contains at least two
components which include matrix and reinforcement. In the
biodegradable composites, all elements should be biodegrad-
able and non-toxic in the human body environment.
Selection of Matrix may play the very important role in
biological implants, as well as reinforcement. The signifi-
cant magnesium compositions were currently being explored.
Those were developed in various stages and every alloy has
been verified for different applications. Pure magnesium and
other elements like Zn, Mn, Al, Ca, Li, Zr, Y, and (RE)
[47–51] are used as degradable biomaterials. By using pure
magnesium in the biological environment, there is a great oc-
currence of Corrosion in Mg as well as H2 gas, which was
existed in few studies, Zinc has an excellent property which
suppresses the hydrogen gas developed in the physiological
condition. The metallic response of commercially available
AZ91D magnesium alloy was investigated in vivo and vitro
conditions and proposed to use as a matrix in magnesium
composites for clinical applications [36]. The SEM image of
commercially available AZ91D is given Fig. 5.
Composites made of bioinert and bioactive ceramics pro-
duced to achieve two important features; those are biocom-
patibility and mechanical strength which are very similar to
cortical bone. There is a specific focus on material properties
of biodegradable composites and chemical reaction towards
formation of fractured bone tissue. Ceramic materials are in-
vestigated to use as biomaterial implants. Ceramics which are
well advised for bio applications and these are called as bio-
ceramics. These bioceramics again classified into biocompat-
ible, bioactive, and biodegradable materials. Nowadays cal-
cium phosphate-based ceramics are used as reinforcement in
magnesium composites to heal the fractured tissues and ex-
hibits outstanding performance in toxicity and immunological
reactions. The bioceramics materials properties were given in
Table 4. The selection of reinforcement materials is calcium
76 V.K. Bommala, M.G. Krishna and C.T. Rao / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 72–79
Table 4
The properties of bioceramics [52].
Bioceramics types Characteristics
Alumina (Al2O3) Biocompatible and bioinert, good strength, high hardness, non
advocate tough membrane at the interface
Zirconium (ZrO2 ) Elevated fracture toughness, flexural strength, bioinert,
biocompatible, non toxic
Bioglass Biocompatible, bioactive, non toxic
brittle, cannot be used for load bearing applications
Hydroxyapatite Bioresorbable, bioactive and biocompatible,
(HAP) similar composition to bone,
good osteoconductive properties
Tri calcium Bioresorbable, bioactive and biocompatible,
phosphate (ß-TCP) similar composition to bone,
good osteoconductive properties
Fig. 1. SEM micrograph of calcium phosphate particles CPP [65].
phosphate-based ceramics [6–10] like calcium polyphosphate
particles (CPP), hydroxy apatite (HAP) and Tri calcium phos-
phate (ß-TCP).
4.1. Magnesium–calcium phosphate particle (CPP) matrix
composites
Bone is a natural composite of a living tissue which is a
calcium phosphate in chemical composition. Whenever this
may fracture it needed additional support retained its orig-
inal structure, for those ceramic composites are developed.
Calcium polyphosphate particles are a polymeric ceramic ox-
ide similar to bone and having good biocompatibility, osteo
conductivity, exhibit a stoichiometry of Ca (PO3)2 and a lin-
ear standard tetrahedral polymer structure base of PO4 units
[53–55]. This calcium phosphate particle reacts with body
fluids and helps to the form a new bone. That seems to be
it promotes the fast growth of bone and can be customized
degradation at a given rate in vivo and vitro conditions and
its degradation products are Ca2+, HPO4 2−, and PO4 3−
[56,57]. SEM micrograph of CPP particles was presented in
Fig. 1. Feng and Han [58,59] studied mechanical proper-
ties, degradation behavior in vitro condition of ultrafine cal-
cium polyphosphate reinforced magnesium-alloy composites,
Applications
Permeable coatings for stems, screws and plates, knee
prosthesis
Artificial knees, bone screws and plates etc.,
Artificial bone and dental implants
Femoral knee, femoral hip, tibial components, ace tabular
cup
Femoral knee, hip prostheses, tibial components, bone
plates and screws and cardiovascular stents
Fig. 2. SEM microstructure of HAP powder [70].
defined that composite strength is increased and also some ef-
fects may be raised which are 1 displacement loops form as
dislocation lines in the matrix, 2 loss of load bearing capabil-
ity, 3 developing thermal stresses 4 improper bonding between
matrix and reinforcing particles and it increases the density
of the composite [60–64]. This Mg/cpp based composite was
stable in body fluid condition and does not decompose in the
dry or moist air up to 1200 °C and also it was exposed to be
bioactive due to its resorbable behavior.
4.2. Magnesium–hydroxyapatite matrix composites
Hydroxyapatite is one of the ceramic oxides used as rein-
forcement in magnesium-based composites, due its chemical
composition is similar to the bone composition. HAP is nat-
urally occurring mineral from the environment and form of
calcium apatite with a chemical formula Ca5 (PO4)3(OH) 2.
Hydroxyapatite is having good biocompatibility, bioactive and
it poses a low solubility in a physiological environment. The
main properties of compressive yield strength and toughness
of HAP are high as compared to natural bone. Fig 2 shows the
SEM micrograph of HAP powder. Most of the researchers Mg
and Hap composites developed by using powder metallurgy
 V.K. Bommala, M.G. Krishna and C.T. Rao / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 72–79
Fig. 3. Microstructure of composites: (a) Mg, (b) Mg–10% HAP, (c) ZM61–0% HAP, and (d) ZM61–5% HAP [72].
(PM) method followed by a hot extrusion process and stud-
ied mechanical, micro structural properties. The XRD study
confirms that small peaks occurred in HAP particles. Hap it-
self shows a poor load carrying capacity which will limit the
applications.
Gu et al. [66] developed the Mg/HAP composite consist
10, 20 and 30 wt % of HAP by PM technique and studied its
microstructure, mechanical properties, corrosion, and cytotox-
icity. Some agglomeration of the HAP particulates is observed
at regular intervals at the Mg/20%HAP composite, where
more no of agglomeration can be seen for the Mg/30HAP
composite, this may reduce the properties of the composite.
Witte et al. [67] prepared and studied mechanical, corrosive
and cytotoxicity properties of an MMC based on AZ91 (as the
matrix) and HAP particles as reinforcements. They adjust the
properties of Mg MMC by varying the particle percentages
and size. The MMC consist of 20 wt. % of HAP powder (size
44 mm), 80 wt.% of AZ91 powder(size 33 mm). The compos-
ite prepared in PM technique and comparison of properties,
Chen et al. [68] measured the compressive strength of the
porous HAP, AZ91, and AZ91/HAP composite. They found
that AZ91 possesses the superlative strength and ductility as
compared with the porous HAP and AZ91/HAP composite.
However, porous HAP shows very low strength and ductil-
ity that cannot bear any external forces. It has been reported
that the adding of HAP particles greater than 10 wt.%, the
yield strength and ultimate tensile strength can be affected
through the greater agglomerations of HAP particles and also
the formation of pores and defects [69].
77
Khanra et al. [71] provided a comparative study on Mg–
HAP and ZM61–HAP composites using various amounts of
chemically sterilized HAP powder (0, 5, 10, and 15 wt.%).
They prepared the composites by an extrusion process. The
microstructure of fabricated composites shows that by adding
of HAP constituent, the grain size decreases (Fig. 3). The
HAP particles (black) in the Mg composite in case of Mg–10
HAP are visible. The SEM micrographs of Mg–10% HAP
consists of agglomerated HAP particles. The SEM micro-
graphs also reveal that decrease in grain size between Mg and
Mg–10% HAP. With the addition of HAP, the tensile strength
of the Mg–HAP composites decreases. As observed that per-
centage of elongation decreases also increase in brittleness
of the Mg–HAP composites. The compressive strength of the
composite is increased by the addition of HAP. According to
Xu et al. [72], the Mg–15% HAP and Mg–0% HAP com-
posites exhibits high compressive strength, yield strength and
decreases tensile strength by the addition of HAP, where the
compressive yield strength increases by adding HAP particles.
4.3. Magnesium–tricalcium phosphate (TCP) matrix
composites
β-TCP has excellent biocompatibility, bioactivity and
bioabsorbable properties in physiological conditions. The Tri-
calcium phosphate is naturally occurred mineral and has a
chemical formula of (Ca3 (PO4)2). Tricalcium phosphate
possesses high dissolution rate as compared to HAP, which
helps to achieve complete degradation of implant material af-
78 V.K. Bommala, M.G. Krishna and C.T. Rao / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 72–79
Fig. 4. (a) SEM micrographs of β-TCP. (b) XRD pattern of β-TCP [73].
Fig. 5. SEM micrograph of AZ91 magnesium alloy and [74].
ter healing of fractured tissue. SEM microstructures and XRD
of β-TCP particles synthesized by the co-precipitation method
[73] was shown in Fig. 4. The XRD studies confirmed that
high peaks occurred on tri calcium phosphate particles. The
Mg/TCP composite can easily develop by using the conven-
tional stirring method and also it reduces the production cost
and time period. By this stirring process, liquid metal pos-
sesses monotonous temperature, homogenous chemical com-
position, and uniform grain distribution. Uniform distribution
of reinforced particle in a composite which improves the grain
refinement and strengthens the solid solution. The agglom-
erations occur on β-TCP particles will be negligible in the
conventionally cast sample.
The commercially available AZ91D magnesium alloy was
investigated in vivo and vitro conditions and proposed to use
as a matrix in magnesium composites for clinical applications.
The AZ19D/TCP composite will be manufactured in stir cast-
ing method and it shows excellent mechanical properties very
close to bone strength and also great grain refinement and
damping characteristics similar to implant applications.The
SEM micrograph of AZ91 magnesium alloy is dipicted in fig-
ure 5. Recently Zheng et al. [75] study the mechanical prop-
erties of β-TCP/Mg–Zn–Zr composites. To eliminate ceramic
particle agglomeration, due to the poor wettability between
ceramic nanoparticles and the Mg–Zn–Zr matrix, they modi-
fied β-TCP with MgO to scatter the β-TCP in the Mg crys-
tal core effectively. This current review aims to discuss the
development of biocompatible, bioactive and bioabsorbable
magnesium-based composite materials for biomedical ortho-
pedic applications.
5. Conclusions
In this current review investigate the present research
progress of the Mg-based composite materials with a focus
on biodegradable, biocompatibility and mechanical proper-
ties. These composites provide great strength-to-weight ra-
tio as well as bio-compatibility and bio-degradability to
be used as orthopedic implants. In this paper main re-
inforcement of biodegradable magnesium composites was
magnesium–calcium polyphosphate (Mg/CPP) matrix com-
posites, magnesium–hydroxyapatite (Mg/HAP) matrix com-
posites and magnesium -β-tricalcium phosphate composites
(Mg/TCP); these were reviewed on manufacturing procedure,
mechanical properties, and corrosion resistance. Whereas each
composite consists of a shorter description of the manufac-
turing processes along with the microstructure of the pro-
duced composites. By going through this paper, it is easy
to understand the mechanical responses of magnesium-based
biodegradable composites along with applications. This re-
view provides a collection of biodegradable Mg composites
spotlight on mechanical characteristics and corrosion resis-
tance for biodegradable implant materials.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
[1] S.V., Bhat, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Bhat, Boston, MT, USA, 2002,
p. 265.
[2] X.N. Gu, Y.F. Zheng, F. Witte, Mater. Sci. Eng. R 77 (2014) 1–34.
 V.K. Bommala, M.G. Krishna and C.T. Rao / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 72–79
[3] G. Yu, E. Zhang, L. Xu, F. Pan, L. Yang, E. Zhang, K. Yang, Bioma-
terials 30 (2009) 1512–1523.
[4] K. Huo, G. Tang, Y. Xin, C. Liu, X. Tian, Surf. Coat. Technol 203
(2009) 2554–2557.
[5] N.A. Shaharom, M.R. Abdul Kadir, A.H. Yusop, A.A. Bakir,
H.Hermawan, Int. J. Biomater 2012 (2012) Article ID 64143010 pages.
[6] M. Meratian, M. Razavi, M.H. Fathi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 (2010)
6938–6944.
[7] W.R. Zhou, X.N. Gu, L.M. Dong, Y.F. Zheng, Y.L. Xi, D.L. Chai, Mater.
Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl 30 (2010) 827–832.
[8] X. Wang, N. Li, L. Li, Y.F. Zheng, X.N. Gu, X. Miao, J. Biomed,
Mater.Res. B. Appl. Biomater 99B (2011) 127–134.
[9] J. Zhou, J. Duszczyk, Z.G. Huan, M.A. Leeflang, Mater. Sci. Eng. B
176(2011) 1644–1652.
[10] S. Cai, F. Feng, N. Li, T. Lei, W. Tang, Corros. Sci. 54 (2012) 270–277.
[11] X.N. Gu, Y.F. Zheng, D.L. Chai, Y.L. Xi, Acta Biomater 6 (2010)
1783–1791.
[12] T. Pollock, Science 328 (2010) 986–987.
[13] R. Bonan, A.W. Asgar, US Cardiol. 6 (1) (2009) 81–84.
[14] J. Huadamai, M. Staiger, A. Pietak, G. Dias, Biomaterials 27 (9) (2006)
1728–1734.
[15] H.A Crostack, V. Kaese, A. Pisch, F. Beckmann, H. Windhagen,
F. Witte, J. Fischer, J. Nellesen, Biomaterials 27 (7) (2006) 1013–1018.
[16] B.A Saw, Corrosion Resistance of Magnesium Alloys, 13, ASM Hand-
book, 2003.
[17] G. Song, Corrosion Sci. 49 (4) (2007) 696–1701.
[18] V. Kaese, B. Hueblein, R. Rohde, M. Niemeyer, W. Hartung,
A. Haverich, Heart 89 (6) (2003) 651–656.
[19] X. Zhang, Y. Chen, Y. Song, S. Zhang, J. Li, C. Zhao, Biomed. Mater.
6 (2) (2011) 1–8.
[20] F. Pan, K. Yang, E. Zhang, L. Xu, G. Yu, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part
A 90 (3) (2009) 882–893.
[21] R.A Lindtner, C. Castellani, P. Hausbrandt, S.E Stanzl-Tschegg,
E. Tschegg, G. Zanoni, S. Beck, A.M Weinberg, Acta Biomaterialia
7 (1) (2011) 432–440.
[22] B.D. Browner, J.P. DeAngelis, J.W. Mast, M.W. Mendes, A.E. Caputo,
Skeletal Trauma, in: B.D. Browner, A. Levine, J. Jupiter, P. Trafton,
C. Krettek (Eds.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelpia, 2008.
[23] E. Switzer, V. Kaese, A. Meyer-Lindenberg, H.Windhagen, J. Biomed.
Mater. Res. A 86 (2008) 1041–1047.
[24] Y. Yun, Z. Dong, F. Witte, I. Abeln, D. Yang, M.J. Schulz, V.N. Shanov,
S. Yarmolenko, et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. C 6 (2009) 1814–1821.
[25] M.O. Platt, H.S. Brar, M. Sarntinoranont, P.I. Martin, M.V. Manuel,
JOM 61 (2009) 31–34.
[26] S. Escobedo, D. Mantovani, H.Y. Lopez, D.A. Cortes-Hernandez, Key
Eng. Mater. 309–311 (2006) 453–456.
[27] F.T. Cheng, W.F. Ng, K.Y. Chiu, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 6 (2010) 898–903.
[28] F.T. Cheng, H.C. Man, K.Y. Chiu, M.H. Wong, Surf. Coat. Technol. 3
(2007) 590–598.
[29] The American Foundry Society, Magnesium Alloys, The American
Foundry Society Technical Dept., Schaumburg, IL, 2006.
[30] M.B. Stephen, C. Simon, A.M. Richards, W. CNathan, A. KTrevor,
J.Osteoporos 2010 (2010) 504078.
[31] H. Baker, M.M. Avedesian, Magnesium and Magnesium Alloys, ASM
International, Materials Park, OH, 1999.
[32] E.F. Emley, Principles of Magnesium Technology, Pergamon Press,
1966.
[33] T. Woodfield, G.J. Dias, N.T. Kirkland, I. Kolbeinsson, M.P. Staiger,
Mater. Sci. Eng. B 176 (2011) 1666–1672.
[34] G.J. Dias, M.P. Staiger, N.T. Kirkland, I. Kolbeinsson, T. Woodfield,
Mater. Lett. 64 (2010) 2572–2574.
[35] G.J. Dias, M.P. Staiger, N.T. Kirkland, I. Kolbeinsson, T.Woodfield, Int.
J.Mod. Phys. B 23 (2009) 1002–1008.
[36] M. Ohta, S. Tsutsumi, K. Ikeuchi, H. Kuwahara, Y. Al-Abdullat,
N. Mazaki, et al., Mater. Sci. Forum 350–351 (2000) 349–358.
[37] R. Willumeit, F. Witte, N. Hort, C. Vogt, S. Cohen, K.U. Kainer, et al.,
Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci 12 (2008) 63–72.
79
[38] N. Li, Y. Zheng, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 29 (2013) 489–502.
[39] S. Brundavanam, G.E.J. Poinern, D. Fawcett, Am. J. Biomed. Eng. 2
(2012) 218–240.
[40] Y. Cheng, S.P. Zhong, X.N. Gu, Y.F. Zheng, T.F. Xi, Biomaterials 30
(2009) 484–498.
[41] S. Dumoulin, P.C. Skaret, H.J. Roven, Y.J. Chen, Y.J. Li, J.C. Walmsley,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A Struct. Mater 527 (2010) 789–796.
[42] T. Shibata, Y. Nakamura, Y. Tsumura, Y. Tonogai, Y. Ito, Fundam.
Appl.Toxicol 37 (1997) 106–116.
[43] A.M. Pietak, M.P. Staiger, G. Dias, J. Huadmai, Biomaterials 27 (2006)
1728–1734.
[44] J. Couet, D. Mantovani, A. Purnama, H. Hermawan, Acta Biomater 6
(2010) 1800–1807.
[45] M.A. Hodgson, C.K. Seal, K. Vince, in: IOP Conference Series: Mate-
rials Science and Engineering, 4, 2009, 012011.
[46] H.A. Crostack, V. Kaese, F. Witte, J. Fischer, J. Nellesen, A. Pisch,
et al., Biomaterials 27 (2006) 1013–1018.
[47] X. Wang, C.X. Ren, L.G. Wang, H.X. Wang, S.K. Guan, Acta Bioma-
terialia 6 (2010) 1743–1748.
[48] F. Pan, Z. Guo, J. Zhang, Mater. Sci. Forum 123 (2007) 546–549.
[49] L. Lin, F. Wang, L. Yang, L. Chen, L. Zheng, Adv. Mater. Res. 152–153
(2010) 864–867.
[50] L.E. Fratila-Apatichei, J. Duszczyk, Z.G. Huan, M.A. Leeflang, J. Zhou,
J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 9 (2010) 2623–2635.
[51] S. Hou, J. Wang, L. Wang, S. Guan, S. Zhu, C. Ren, J. Mater. Sci.
Mater. Med. 7 (2010) 2001–2008.
[52] R. Radha, D. Sreekanth, J. Magnes. Alloys 5 (2017) 286–312.
[53] M.E. Smith, L.E. Jackson, B.M. Kariuki, J.E. Barralet, A.J. Wright,
Chem. Mater. 17 (2005) 4642–4646.
[54] S. Kim, S.B. Han, Y.M. Lee, Y.J. Seol, Y.T. Lim, I.C. Rhyu, J. Biomed.
Mater. Res. 54 (2001) 216–2123.
[55] R.M. Pilliar, R.A. Kandel, S.D. Waldman, M.D. Grynpas, J. Biomed.
Mater. Res 62 (2002) 323–3230.
[56] C. Liu, C. Rüssel, K. Wang, F. Chen, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 28 (2008)
1572–1578.
[57] Y. Tian, X.Yu C.Wan, W. Song, M. Tian, F. Chen, J. Biomed. Mater.
Res.Part B 89 (2009) 430–438.
[58] M.R. Abdul Kadir, H. Hermawan, A.H. Yusop, A.A. Bakir, N.A. Sha-
harom, Int. J. Biomater 2012 (2012) 641430 Article ID10 pages.
[59] Y.F. Zheng, X.N. Gu, Front. Mater. Sci. China 4 (2010) 111–115.
[60] W.L.E. Wong, X.L. Zhong, M. Gupta, Acta Mater 55 (2007) 6338–6344.
[61] R. Mahmudi, W.J. Poole, M. Habibnejad-Korayem, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
519 (2009) 198–203.
[62] M. Gupta, C.S. Goh, J. Wei, L.C. Lee, Nanotechnology 17 (2006) 7–12.
[63] M. Gupta, S.F. Hassan, J. Alloys Compd 345 (2002) 246–251.
[64] M. Gupta, W.L.E. Wong, Compos. Sci. Technol 67 (2007) 1541–1552.
[65] Y. Han, A.L. Feng, Mater. Des. 32 (2011) 2813–2820.
[66] Y.F. Zheng, L.M. Dong, X.N. Gu, W.R. Zhou, Y.L. Xi, D.L. Chai,
Mater.Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl 30 (2010) 827–832.
[67] J. Fischer, M. Stormer, C. Blawert, F. Witte, F. Feyerabend, P. Maier,
et al., Biomaterials 28 (2007) 2163–2174.
[68] Q. Dong, J.-X. Zheng, B. Chen, K.-Y. Yin, T.-F. Lu, B.-Y. Sun, et al.,
J.Mater. Sci. Technol 32 (2016) 858–864.
[69] M. Gupta, S.F. Hassan, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 392 (2005) 163–168.
[70] H.C. Jung, K.S. Hong, A.K. Khanra, K.S. Shin, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527
(2010) 6283–6288.
[71] H.C. Jung, S.H. Yu, K.S. Hong, A.K. Khanra, K.S. Shin, Bull. Mater.
Sci. 33 (2010) 43–47.
[72] E. Zhang, K. Yang, L. Xu, F. Pan, G. Yu, L. Yang, Biomaterials 30
(2009) 1512–1523.
[73] Y.H. Koh, Y.M. Kong, B.H. Yoon, H.W. Kim, S.H. Lee, C.J. Bae, Bio-
materials 26 (2005) 2957–2963.
[74] C. Klein, C.S. Hurlbut, J.D. Dana, Manual of Mineralogy, twenty-first
ed, Wiley, 1999 ISBN 0-471-31266-5.
[75] H.R. Zheng, Z. Li, C. You, D.B. Liu, M.F. Chen, Bioact. Mater 2 (2017)
1–9.