Niobium improves corrosion resistance and biocompatibility of implants

As early as 1991, a study and analysis of pure titanium implants and pure niobium implants implanted in rabbit bone showed that the opening torque of pure niobium implants was significantly higher than that of pure titanium implants, and it was speculated that this might be due to the more irregular surface morphology of pure niobium implants compared to pure titanium implants. However, more research has been done on the introduction of niobium into titanium alloys to reduce the precipitation of toxic metals (e.g., nickel, vanadium) ions from titanium alloys to improve the biocompatibility of titanium alloys, as well as to reduce the modulus of elasticity of titanium alloys and to increase the mechanical strength of implants.Sakai et al. examined the effects of 15 commonly used biomaterials on the bioactivity of osteoclast-like cells and showed that vanadium and vanadium, in both particulate and ionic form, had significantly higher opening torque than pure titanium implants. and ionic forms, vanadium and nickel were much more cytotoxic than niobium.

Park et al. compared the cytocompatibility of pure metals and binary titanium alloys for implantation, and the average cytocompatibility of aluminum, vanadium, and niobium was 25.3%, 31.7%, and 93%, respectively. Among the pure metals, pure titanium was the most cytocompatible (and the least cytotoxic), but Ti-lONb alloys demonstrated cytocompatibility that exceeded that of pure titanium, with an average cytocompatibility of 124.8%.D.1 igima et al. showed that Ti-6AI-7Nb alloy had better wear resistance and mechanical strength than pure titanium.Yoshimitsu et al. implanted implants made from Ti-1 5Zr-4Nb-4Ta alloy and Ti-6A1-4V alloy into rat tibia respectively and executed them after 48 weeks, which showed that the surface of the Ti-15Zr-4Nb-4Ta implant had The results showed that the corrosion pits on the surface of the Ti-15Zr-4Nb-4Ta implant were less than those on the surface of the Ti-6Al-4V implant, indicating that the corrosion resistance of the former was stronger than that of the latter.

ChaUa et al. compared the cytotoxicity and cellular response of osteogenic precursor cells with those of Ti-6A1-7Nb alloy and Ti-6A1-4V alloy, and the results showed that Ti-6A1-7Nb implants were significantly higher than Ti-6Al-4V implants in terms of cellular adhesion, proliferation, viability, morphology, and extension. In addition, immunofluorescence assay showed enhanced expression of cell adhesion proteins and extension of actin tension fibers in the extracellular region of the Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy.Stenlund et al. compared the in vivo results of the new Ti-Ta-Nb-Zr alloy implant with those of pure titanium, and found that the new niobium-containing alloy outperformed the pure titanium alloy in terms of long-term implant stability and speed of bone healing, and in terms of osteointegration ability. Takahashi et al. compared the biomechanical properties of low modulus of elasticity Ti-Nb-Sn alloy with those of pure titanium implants and found that the biomechanical properties of the alloys were fully capable of meeting the needs of osseointegration.

The study of Han Xue et al. found that the micro-arc oxidized alkali heat-treated Ti-24Nb-4Zr-7.9Sn alloy implant could form a good osseointegration with the Bio-Oss and its surrounding nascent osteoid, guiding the regeneration of bone tissue.