surface engineering Research Summary

laser surface modification

of metallic Biomaterials
Amit Bandyopadhyay, Vamsi Krishna Balla, Mangal Roy, and Susmita Bose

Load-bearing metal implants often face properties. As it is quite difficult metal implants with surface attributes
fail prematurely due to inadequate bio- to design metal implants fulfilling both that are decoupled from the bulk prop-
compatibility, mechanical/tribological needs, a most popular approach is to erties. Furthermore, the surface prop-
properties, and poor osseointegration. fabricate implants with adequate bulk erties can be selectively modified to
It is well known that biomaterials’ sur- properties followed by a special treat- enhance site-specific biological and/
face plays a vital role in the response to ment to enhance their surface proper- or tribological performance of the im-
these metal implants in the biological ties. In this way, one can make novel plants for a variety of orthopedic ap-
environment. The biological effective- plications. Because of these reasons,
ness of artificial implants is determined research on surface modification of
mainly by their surface characteristics How would you… metallic biomaterials has attracted
such as surface morphology, micro- …describe the overall significance much attention to improve multifunc-
structure, composition, mechanical of this paper? tionality, tribological and mechanical
properties, wettabilility, and surface Biomaterials’ surface characteristics properties, as well as biocompatibility
free energy. Hence, there is significant play a vital role to improve the of artificial metal implants while obvi-
service life of metal implants. Surface
interest toward surface modification modification of metal implants via ating the need for large expenses and a
and effective design of load-bearing lasers can elicit specific, desired, and long time to develop brand new metal-
metal implants so as to improve their timely response from the surrounding lic biomaterials.
cells and tissues through improved
surface properties and thereby elicit a multifunctionality, tribological, and
Major factors limiting the life of
specific, desired, and timely response mechanical properties, as well as current load-bearing metal implants
from the surrounding cells and tissues. biocompatibility. include (i) mismatch of the Young’s
In this article, we provide an insight …describe this work to a modulus between bone (10–30 GPa)
into laser surface modification of Ti/ materials science and engineering and metallic implant materials (110
Ti6Al4V alloy with or without func- professional with no experience in GPa for Ti and over 200 GPa for CoCr-
tional gradation in composition and your technical specialty? Mo alloy) leading to stress-shielding;
their microstructural, in vitro wear and Artificial bone substitute materials’ (ii) poor interfacial bond between the
surface and bulk mechanical
biological properties for various load- properties determine the quality of host tissue and the implant due to bio-
bearing orthopedic applications. implant-bone integration, long-term inert surface, and (iii) wear induced os-
stabilization, and, in turn, the in teolysis and aseptic loosening in metal-
introduCtion vivo life of an implant. As it is quite on-polymer implants. One consider-
difficult to design metal implants
Musculoskeletal disorders are seri- fulfilling both needs, a most popular ation to reduce modulus mismatch, and
ous health conditions that severely af- approach is to fabricate implants thus the stress-shielding, has been the
fect quality of life. In most cases, res- with adequate bulk properties development of implants with porous
followed by a special treatment to
toration of lost structures and functions or low modulus metals. Use of porous
enhance their surface properties,
of diseased bones, particularly load- which is explored in this article. metals can effectively reduce the mod-
bearing structures, requires an artificial ulus mismatch1,2 and provide pathways
…describe this work to a layperson?
bone substitute material that does not for bone in-growth through the pores
In most cases, restoration of diseased
damage the healthy tissue or pose any bones requires an artificial bone for stable long-term anchorage or bio-
viral or bacterial risk to patients. It is substitute that does not damage the logical fixation of the implant.3–5 Most
generally known that implants’ surface healthy tissues or pose any viral and/ popular approaches to achieve strong
and bulk mechanical properties deter- or bacterial risk to patients. Metals bone-implant interfacial strength are
are bioinert and naturally lack good
mine the quality of implant-bone inte- bonding with bone tissue. To enhance application of bioactive coatings6–8
gration, long-term stabilization, and, in tissue–materials interactions and porous metal coatings9 on dense
turn, in vivo life of an implant. Hence, bioactive coatings are typically used. metals. Application of hydroxyapa-
it is of paramount importance to de- Also to reduce contact resistance tite (HA) ceramics, titanium- or tan-
between articulating metallic parts
sign load-bearing metal implants with hard coatings are commonly used. talum-based porous metal coating on
the best combination of bulk and sur- implants provides an osteoinductive

94 www.tms.org/jom.html JOM • June 2011

surface for tissue fixation with the sur- Increasing CoCrMo alloy concentration
rounding bone. Clinical and histologi-
cal evidence from retrieved implants
clearly demonstrates that porous coated

Ti6A14V alloy
implants can enhance bone tissue in-
growth and are effective in supple-
menting the stability of the implant by Figure 1. Typical micro-
biological fixation.10,11 Several attempts structure of laser-pro-
have been made to minimize the wear- cessed Ti6Al4V-CoCrMo
graded structure with Unmelted Ti6A14V particles
induced osteolysis, including the use 86% CoCrMo alloy at the
of design modifications,12 UHMWPE top surface. 0.86 mm
property modification13 and the use
of alternate bearing couples, such as
Net Shaping (LENS™).28 Using opti- sity observed on 100% CoCrMo al-
metal-on-metal (MM) and ceramic-on-
mized LENS processing parameters, loy. Moreover, the porosity on the
ceramic (CC) implants, thereby elimi-
crack free coatings containing up to Ti6Al4V alloy side, which will be in
nating the use of UHMWPE.14–16 Both
86% CoCrMo on top surface have been contact with bone, can improve bone
the clinical retrievals and hip simulator
deposited on Ti6Al4V alloy with excel- tissue in-growth while the hard coat-
testing have shown that MM bearing
lent reproducibility.28 These composi- ing on the other side increases the wear
has considerably low linear (40 times)
tionally graded structures consisted of resistance of the structure in contact
and volumetric (200 times) wear than
porous 100% Ti6Al4V alloy in the first with CoCrMo femoral heads. In vitro
a metal-on-UHMWPE couple.14–18 A
six layers and the composition in the wear tests on these gradient structures
number of different surface modifica-
transition region has been varied from indicated that the wear rate of ultra-
tion techniques have been employed
100% Ti6Al4V alloy at the first layer high molecular weight polyethylene
for the preparation of metallic implants
to various concentrations of CoCrMo (UHMWPE) and 100% CoCrMo al-
to improve biological7,8,19,20 and tribo-
alloy at the top layer over 5 to 6 layers. loy substrates depend on the hardness
logical properties.21–24 Among these
Figure 1 shows typical microstructure and microstructural features of the
techniques laser surface modification
of laser-processed Ti6Al4V-CoCrMo counter surface rubbing against them.
can offer a high degree of process con-
graded structure with 86% CoCrMo In general, the wear rate of both the
trollability and flexibility. There is a
alloy at the top surface. Rapid cooling substrates increased with a decrease in
growing amount of published work that
rates associated with LENS process the CoCrMo alloy concentration on the
testifies to the potential of lasers for
reduced high temperature interaction top surface of gradient pins.29 Figure 2
altering the surface properties of me-
of Ti with Co, and eliminated the for- shows the wear coefficient (wear rate)
tallic biomaterials in order to improve
mation of intermetallic compounds. of UHMWPE discs tested against gra-
their biological and tribological proper-
In vitro biocompatibility tests showed dient metal pins with varying concen-
ties.25,26 Common advantages of laser
higher living cell density and better tration of CoCrMo alloy on the top sur-
surfacing, specifically for biomedi-
cell proliferation on gradient surfaces face. The results show that the average
cal applications, compared to alterna-
compared to 100% CoCrMo alloy. The wear coefficient of UHMWPE against
tives26,27 include chemical cleanliness,
average top surface hardness of gradi- metallic pins varied between 1.70×10–6
controlled thermal penetration and dis-
ent structure increased with increasing mm3/Nm and 9.35×10–6 mm3/Nm. The
tortion, controlled thermal profile, and,
concentration of CoCrMo (Table I). microstructure of GP50 pins (50%
therefore, shape and location of the heat
Gradient coatings with 86% CoCrMo CoCrMo on top) with large chunks of
affected region, remote noncontact pro-
in the top surface showed >180% in- hard CoCrMo alloy phase acted as iso-
cessing, and relative ease to automate.
crease in the surface hardness (com- lated abrasive particles leading to local
Therefore, in this paper, an overview
pared to 100% Ti6Al4V alloy) with grooving and high wear rate of UHM-
of our recent work on the fabrication,
more than double the living cell den- WPE. Table II shows the wear rate of
characterization, and properties of la-
ser surface modified Ti/Ti6Al4V alloy
with bioactive and/or wear resistance Table I. Average Top Surface Hardness (HV) of Gradient Structures28,34
metals/ceramics is presented.
Ti6Al4V-CoCrMo Gradient Structures Ti-TiO2 Gradient Structures
Hard and Wear
Composition Hardness Composition Hardness
resistant Coatings
100% Ti6Al4V 333 ± 16 100% Ti 192 ± 14
Ti6Al4V–CoCrMo Structures
25%CoCrMo + 75 Ti6Al4V 588 ± 27 50% TiO2 + 50% Ti 1102 ± 140
Functionally graded structures with
hard and wear resistant CoCrMo alloy 50%CoCrMo + 50 Ti6Al4V 670 ± 28 90% TiO2 + 10% Ti 1122 ± 116
coating on porous Ti6Al4V alloy with 70%CoCrMo + 30 Ti6Al4V 789 ± 38 100% TiO2 1150 ± 118
metallurgically sound interface have
86%CoCrMo + 14 Ti6Al4V 947 ± 22 — —
been produced using Laser Engineered

Vol. 63 No. 6 • JOM www.tms.org/jom.html 95

 Table II. Wear Rate (mm3/Nm) of Laser Processed Gradient Pins and 1102±140Hv to 1122±116Hv when the
CoCrMo Pins/Substrates during Metal-on-metal Articulation29 TiO2 concentration at the top surface
86%CoCrMo + 70%CoCrMo + 30 50%CoCrMo + increased from 50% to 90% in the coat-
Pin Material 100% Ti6Al4V 14 Ti6Al4V Ti6Al4V 50 Ti6Al4V ing (Table I). These top surface hard-
ness values are significantly higher
Wear Rate of Pins (Substrate: 100% Ti6Al4V)
than the average hardness of the laser-
1.68×10–7 ± 1.13×10–7 ± 1.31×10–7 ± deposited Ti, which was 192±14Hv.
1000 m 7.99×10–8 ± 2.82×10–8
4.77×10–8 2.98×10–8 1.30×10–8 Gradient coatings with only 50% TiO2
6.48×10–8 ± 4.28×10–8 ± in top surface showed > 470% increase
3000 m 5.07×10–8 ± 1.65×10–8 4.2×10–8 ± 1.86×10–8
3.21×10–8 8.99×10–9 in the surface hardness. The finer grain
Wear Rate of Substrate (Substrate: 100% Ti6Al4V) size, uniform microstructure and high
3.94×10–7 ± 1.58×10–6 ± 1.63×10–6 ±
hardness of laser-processed gradient
3000 m 8.96×10–7 ± 6.27×10–8 coating can potentially provide excel-
3.32×10–8 9.72×10–8 1.43×107
lent wear resistance. It is anticipated
gradient pins and CoCrMo alloy sub- in vitro wear resistance with a decrease that hard TiO2 ceramic coating on the
strates under metal-on-metal articulat- in Co ion release. other side can decrease the wear of
ing condition i.e., pins rubbing against UHMWPE due to its higher wettabil-
Ti–TiO2 Structures
laser processed 100% CoCrMo alloy ity and chemisorbed lubricating films.31
discs. For both the sliding distances of Ceramics such as TiO2, Al2O3, and Therefore, these compositionally/struc-
1,000 m and 3,000 m, 100% CoCrMo ZrO2 have a highly ionic character and turally graded Ti-TiO2 structures could
pins always showed the highest wear therefore exhibit higher wettability31 provide a favorable articulation surface
rate between 6.480×10–8 mm3/Nm than the passive oxide films on stain- with a low friction coefficient and high
and 1.68×10–7 mm3/Nm. Lowest wear less steels or CoCrMo alloys used for wear resistance against UHMWPE re-
rate in the range of 5.07 to 7.99×10–8 biomedical applications. Also, these ducing its wear rate.
mm3/Nm was observed for GP86 pins passive oxide films on metals/alloys
Ti–Zr–ZrO2 Structures
(86% CoCrMo on top). The wear rate can break off from the substrate dur-
was found to increase with a decrease ing articulation and do not provide suf- Thick ZrO2 films grown in situ by
in the top surface CoCrMo alloy con- ficient wear resistance or low friction self-oxidation of Zr or Zr alloy are
centration; however the difference was against UHMWPE. Further, it has been good alternatives to externally applied
observed to decrease with an increase reported that lubricating compounds, ceramic coatings and monolithic ce-
in the sliding distance. These results such as water, readily chemisorbs to ramic prostheses.23,24 For orthopedic
correlate well with the observed top ceramics surface than to metals and application, oxide scale thicknesses
surface hardness of various pins (Table these films can effectively reduce the of ~5 μm are generally achieved on Zr
I). Co ion release analysis during in friction coefficient and hence the wear and Zr-Nb alloys after several hours
vitro wear testing29 showed high Co due to their lubrication characteris- of oxidation in dry air between 600
release during metal-on-metal wear tics.31–33 Therefore, a ceramic coating and 700ºC.35 Such an exposure might
testing compared to that of metal-on- on biocompatible metals such as Ti can have a detrimental effect on mechani-
UHMWPE, and the amount of Co re- provide a favorable articulation surface cal properties of the substrate due to
leased (0.38 and 0.91 ppm) was lower with low friction coefficient and high excessive oxygen diffusion into the
than previous study on the pin-on- wear resistance. To evaluate this hy- base metal, which could change its mi-
disc wear testing of CoCrMo alloys,30 pothesis, gradient structures with 50%, crostructural features.36,37 In addition,
where the reported Co concentration 90% and 100% TiO2 on the top surface high-temperature oxidation has been
was between 2 and 13 ppm. Therefore, have been made at 300 W laser power found to develop undesirable voids in
the present CoCrMo-Ti6Al4V alloy and 22.5 mm/s scan speed.34 The hard- the oxide scale,38 lowering its stability
gradient structures showed enhanced ness of the top surface increased from during service. Recently we have dem-
onstrated that high-energy lasers can
1.6×10–5
be used to deposit and subsequently
1,000 m oxidize the Zr to create highly wear re-
1.4×10–5
3,000 m sistant and biocompatible surfaces.39 A
Wear Coefficient (mm3/Nm)

1.2×10–5 typical high magnification FESEM im-

1.0×10–5 age showing strong interface between
8.0×10–6 the Zr coating and ZrO2 film processed
6.0×10–6
using LENS™ at 200 W and 4% O2
Figure 2. Influence of environment is shown in Figure 3. The
CoCrMo alloy concentra- 4.0×10–6
tion, in the top surface influences of laser power and oxygen
of metallic pins, on the 2.0×10–6 partial pressure on the oxide film thick-
wear rate of UHMWPE.29 ness are shown in Table III. The oxide
100% (P100) 86% (GP86) 70% (GP70) 50% (GP50)
CoCrMo Concentration in Pin’s Top Surface
film thickness increased with increas-
ing laser power up to 200 W. Further

96 www.tms.org/jom.html JOM • June 2011

 Table III. ZrO2 Film Thickness (mm) confirm that laser-oxidized Zr coatings
and Wear Rate (mm3/Nm) of were non-toxic and biocompatible.
Laser Oxidized Zr Coatings39
Oxide Film Thickness (mm) BioaCtive Coatings
21% O2 Calcium Phosphate Coatings
Laser Power, W 2% O2 4% O2 (air)

100 4.7 ± 1.5 Lasers have been used to coat tita-

nium with tricalcium phosphate (TCP)
2.2 ± 2.2 ±
200
0.5
7.0 ± 2.5
0.3
ceramics to improve bone cell–ma-
terials interactions. At optimized la-
5 mm 300 6.98 ± 1.0
ser parameters, a coating thickness of
Wear Rate (mm3/Nm)
Figure 3. High magnification FESEM 200–700 mm with a desirable amount
Wear
image showing strong interface be- of coating material in the coating has
tween the Zr coating and ZrO2 film pro- Laser Power, W Distance, m Rate
cessed at 200 W, 4% O2.
been obtained.40 It was found that an
100 240 0.001 increase in laser power and/or powder
increase in the laser power did not 100 480 0.001 feed rate increases the thickness of the
change the oxide film thickness. Simi- 200 240 0.0015 coating. However, coating thickness
larly, the film thickness increased from 200 480 0.0015 decreased with increasing laser scan
2.2±0.5 to 7.0±2.5 mm with the oxygen As-deposited Zr 240 0.0197 speed. TCP coating showed columnar
content of the glove box increasing CP Ti 240 0.021 titanium grains at the substrate side of
from 2% to 4%, and at 21% (oxidiz- the coating and transitioned to equiaxed
ing in air) the film thickness dropped angle of 63o ±3o. Due to its high surface titanium grains at the outside. The pro-
down to 2.2±0.3 mm when oxidized at energy and wettability, the wear rate cess can be used to create coatings with
200 W. It has been shown that conven- of laser-oxidized Zr was two orders composition gradient across the coat-
tional furnace oxidation in air requires of magnitude less compared to that ing thickness, which significantly re-
several hours38 to achieve identical ox- of as-deposited Zr. The oxidized coat- duces the interfacial problems associ-
ide film thicknesses as those observed ings also showed comparable in vitro ated with the sharp interface present in
in Reference 39. Application of lasers biocompatibility to that of pure Ti and conventional coating processes, such
created thick oxide films, sufficient excellent in vitro cell–material interac- as plasma spraying. Coated surfaces
for orthopedic applications, within a tions. The numbers of living cells on showed uniformly distributed TCP par-
minute at an oxygen partial pressure of these samples as determined by MTT ticles (Figure 5). X-ray diffraction data
~0.112 mm Hg (1.47×10–4atm) due to assay are shown in Figure 4. For all du- confirmed the absence of any undesir-
localized heating of Zr to elevated tem- rations, the lowest cell density was ob- able phases, while maintaining a high
peratures, which ensured high oxygen served on as-deposited Zr coatings and level of crystallinity.40 In vitro cell–ma-
diffusion rates. A further increase in the maximum cell density was observed terial interaction study indicated that
oxide film thickness can be achieved by on the Ti control sample. However, af- TCP coating had good biocompatibility
multiple exposures of the coating sur- ter oxidation the cell density on the Zr where human osteoblast cells attached
face to the laser beam or by decreasing coating increased and reached that of and proliferated well on the coating
the laser scan speed, i.e., by increasing the Ti control sample. The difference surface. The coating also initiated cell
the oxidation time. A summary of the between the cell density of the Zr coat- differentiation, extracellular matrix
results of in vitro wear tests performed ings and that of the Ti control gradu- formation as well as biomineralization.
on laser-oxidized Zr is shown in Table ally decreased with increasing culture
III. The experimental data indicate time, and comparable cell densities Tantalum Coatings
that the wear rate of Zr was reduced were observed after 11 days of culture Over the last few decades research-
by two orders of magnitude due to la- on oxidized Zr coatings. These results ers have attempted to find a bioactive
ser oxidation, compared to that of un-
oxidized Zr and Ti substrates. These 0.5
results are intuitive, as the hard ZrO2 0.45 Ti
film resist wear. The phase analysis of 0.4 Zr
Oxidized (100W)
these coatings showed that the laser 0.35
Optical Density

Oxidized (200W)
oxidized films primarily composed of 0.3
tetragonal-ZrO2 and monoclinic-ZrO2 Figure 4. MTT assay of 0.25
phases. The laser oxidation of Zr coat- OPC1 cells observed on la- 0.2
ser processed Zr and ZrO2
ings also enhanced the wettability of films as a function of culture
0.15
Zr. The contact angle of water on the time. A higher optical den- 0.1
oxidized Zr surface decreased from 52º sity represents higher con- 0.05
centration of living cells.39 0
±1º to 42º ±1º when the laser power
was increased from 100 to 200 W, and 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Days
the un-oxidized Zr showed a contact

Vol. 63 No. 6 • JOM www.tms.org/jom.html 97

metal with high mechanical strength Table IV. Contact Angles (º), Polar and Dispersive Components of
and excellent fatigue resistance that can Total Surface Energy (mN m–1) of Ta and HA Surfaces44
bond chemically with surrounding bone Total Surface
for orthopedic applications. Therefore, Surface DI Water Diiodomethane Polar Dispersive Energy
a bioactive metal will not require any
Ta 51 ± 2 49 ± 0.9 19.5 34.93 55.4
additional coating and therefore can al-
leviate most of the problems associated HA 62 ± 1.1 57 ± 0.8 15.15 30.30 45.4
with bioinert metals and brittle calcium
phosphate coatings for load-bearing Ti 69 ± 1.5 55 ± 3 10.92 31.38 42.3
implants. Recently there has been re-
newed interest in tantalum due to its 0.25
excellent ductility, toughness, corro- 3 Days 11 Days
sion resistance, and bioactivity.41,42 Figure 6. MTT assay of
cells (optical density) 0.2
However, relatively high cost of manu- observed as a function
facture and inability to produce a mod-

Optical Density
of culture time on la-
0.15
ular all-tantalum implant limited its ser processed porous
Ta, porous Ti samples,
wide spread applicability. Further, high Ta coatings and plas- 0.1
affinity for oxygen and extremely high ma sprayed HA coat-
melting temperature (3,017ºC) make ings.7,43,44 A higher opti-
cal density represents 0.05
it difficult to process tantalum-based higher concentration of
coatings or implant structures via con- living cells. 0
ventional processing routes. However, Porous Ti Porous Ta Dense Ta Dense HA
recently we have demonstrated fabrica- (73%) (73%) Coating Coating
tion of bulk porous Ta structures,43 with
total porosities between 27% and 55%,
and dense Ta coatings on Ti7 using obtained using MTT are shown in Fig- biological fixation.
high-power lasers in LENS—a solid ure 6. A statistically significant differ-
ConClusions
freeform fabrication technology. Our ence (p<0.05) in cell density has been
in vitro biocompatibility tests using the observed between Ta samples and Ti In summary, novel, unitized Ti/
MTT assay and an immunochemistry or HA.7,43,44 Moreover, quantitative as- Ti6Al4V structures, with or without
study showed excellent cellular adher- say of cell survivability on these coat- porosity, on one side and hard and/
ence, growth and differentiation with ings demonstrates that the Ta coatings bioactive surfaces on the other side can
abundant extracellular matrix forma- provide comparable initial cell attach- be fabricated using laser-based mate-
tion on porous Ta structures compared ment to that of HA coatings. Excellent rial deposition technologies. Recent
to porous Ti control.43 A six-fold higher cellular attachment and spreading in investigations on laser processing of Ta
living cell density was observed on Ta terms of high intensity and distribution opens up further possibilities to create
coatings than on a Ti control surface of vinculin expression demonstrated modular Ta implants for a variety of
as measured by the MTT assay.7 Cell the biocompatibility of laser processed applications. Gradient structures with
proliferation data on the porous and Ta.7,8,43 It is generally accepted that the CoCrMo, TiO2 and ZrO2 on top surface
dense Ta, Ti, and HA coating surfaces cell attachment and growth are primar- found to exhibit high hardness and in
ily associated with a material’s chem- vitro wear resistance. Further, we have
istry and surface characteristics such shown that the laser processing does
as wettability and surface energy. Ta not change the inherent biocompatibil-
surface exhibited lower contact angles ity of the materials used to fabricate the
Ti and higher surface energy than Ti or structures.
HA surfaces.7,43,44 Moreover, the polar
aCknoWledgements
component of the Ta metals’ surface
TCP
energy is comparable to that of HA The authors would like to acknowl-
coating (Table IV), which enhanced edge the financial support from the
TCP cellular adhesion and proliferation. A W.M. Keck Foundation to establish a
Ti high surface energy and excellent wet- Biomedical Materials Research Lab at
tability of Ta surface have been found WSU. Also financial support from the
to contribute to improve cell–mate- M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust, the
20 mm rial interactions of Ta that is compa- Office of Naval Research (N00014-1-
rable to that of HA.7,43,44 These results 04-0644 and N00014-1-05-0583), the
Figure 5. Typical top surface SEM mi-
crograph of laser deposited TCP coat-
demonstrate that Ta structures offer a National Science Foundation (CMMI
ings (400 W, 15 mm/s, 13 g/min) after favorable biological environment for 0728348) and the National Institutes
polishing and etching.40 adhesion, growth and differentiation of of Health (NIH-R01-EB-007351) are
human osteoblasts, which can promote gratefully acknowledged.

98 www.tms.org/jom.html JOM • June 2011

references 16. N. Douglas et al., J. Arthroplasty, 19 (7) (Suppl. 2) 33. M. Semlitsch et al., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 11
(2004), pp. 35–41. (1977), pp. 537–552.
17. F.W. Chan et al., Clin. Orthop., 369 (1999), pp. 34. V.K. Balla et al., Acta Biomaterialia, 5 (2009), pp.
1. B.V. Krishna, S. Bose, and A. Bandyopadhyay, Acta 10–24. 1831–1837.
Biomaterialia, 3 (2007), pp. 997–1006. 18. J. Michael et al., J. Arthroplasty, 19(7) (Suppl. 2) 35. L.W. Hobbs et al., Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol., 2
2. B.V. Krishna, S. Bose, and A. Bandyopadhyay, J. (2004), pp. 48–53. (2005), pp. 221–246.
Biomedical Materials Research B, 89B (2009), pp. 19. K.D. Groot, J.G. Wolke, and J.A. Jansen, Proc. 36. J.P. Pemsler, J. Electrochem. Soc., 111 (1964), pp.
481–490. Instn. Mech. Engrs. Part H, 212 (1998), pp. 137–147. 381–385.
3. A.J.T. Clemow et al., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 15 20. R. Narayanan et al., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B 37. V.F. Urbanic and W.W. Smeltzer, J. Electrochem.
(1981), pp. 73–82. Appl. Biomater., 85B (2008), pp. 279–299. Soc., 119 (1972), pp. 1527–1531.
4. W. Xue et al., Acta Biomaterialia, 3 (2007), pp. 21. F. Platon, P. Fournie, and S. Rouxel, Wear, 250 38. J.P. Pemsler, J. Electrochem. Soc., 112 (1965), pp.
1007–1018. (2001), pp. 227–236. 477–484.
5. A. Bandyopadhyay et al., Acta Biomaterialia, 6 22. C. Liu, Q. Bi, and A. Matthews, Surf. Coat. Technol., 39. V.K. Balla et al., Acta Biomaterialia, 5 (2009), pp.
(2010) pp. 1640-1648. 163–164 (2003), pp. 597–604. 2800–2809.
6. L.C. Lucas et al., Colloids and Surfaces A: Physi- 23. J.A. Davidson et al., Bioceramics, 5 (1992), pp. 40. M. Roy et al., Acta Biomaterialia, 4 (2008), pp.
cochemical and Engineering Aspects, 77 (1993), pp. 389–401. 324–333.
141–147. 24. S.E. White et al., Clin. Orthop., 309 (1994), pp. 41. M.D. Bermudez et al., Wear, 258 (2005), pp. 693–
7. V.K. Balla et al., Acta Biomaterialia, 6 (2010), pp. 176–184. 700.
2329-2334. 25. A. Kurella and B.D. Narendra, J. Biomater. Appl., 20 42. H. Kato et al., J. Biomedical Materials Research, 53
8. V.K. Balla et al., JOM, 62 (7) (2010), pp. 61–64. (2005), pp. 5–50 (2000), pp. 28–35.
9. M. Spector, Biocompatibility of Orthopaedic Im- 26. L. Hao and J. Lawrence, Laser Surface Treatment 43. V.K. Balla et al., Acta Biomaterialia, 6 (2010), pp.
plants, ed. D.F. Williams (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, of Bio-Implant Materials (England, John Wiley & Sons, 3349–3359.
1982), pp. 89–128. 2005). 44. M. Roy et al., Advanced Engineering Materials
10. J.P. Collier et al., Clinical Orthopedics, 235 (1988), 27. W.M. Steen, Laser Material Processing (London: (Advanced Biomaterials), 12 (2010), pp. B637–B641.
pp. 173–180. Springer-Verlag, 1991).
11. R.J. Friedman et al., J. Bone Joint Surgery [Am], 28. V.K. Balla et al., Acta Biomaterialia, 4 (2008), pp.
75A (1993), pp. 1086–1109. 697–706.
12. D.L. Bartel, V.L. Bicknell and T.M. Wright, J. Bone 29. S. Dittrick et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. C, 31 (4) (2011). Vamsi Krishna Balla and Mangal Roy, research as-
Joint Surg., 68A (1986), pp. 1041–1051. pp. 809–814. sociates, Susmita Bose and Amit Bandyopadhyay,
13. M.D. Ries, M.L. Scott and S. Jani, J. Bone Joint 30. K.R. St. John, L.D. Zardiackas, and R.A. Poggie, professors, are with W.M. Keck Biomedical Mate-
Surg., 83A (Suppl. 2) (2001), pp. 116–122. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B: Appl. Biomater., 68B rials Research Laboratory, School of Mechani-
14. T. Koshino et al., J. Arthroplasty, 17 (2002), pp. (2004), pp. 1–14. cal and Materials Engineering, Washington State
1009–1015. 31. S. Mori, Jpn. J. Tribol., 36 (1991), pp. 161–168. University, Pullman, WA 99164-2920, USA. Dr. Ban-
15. C. Rieker and P. Kottig, Hip Int., 12 (2002), pp. 32. R. Gates, S. Hsu, and E. Klaus, STLE Trib. Trans., dyopadhyay can be reached at (509) 335-4862; fax
73–76. 32 (1989), pp. 357–363. (509) 335-4662; e-mail [email protected].

Amit Bandyopadhyay, Vamsi Krishna Balla, and Susmita Bose are TMS Members
To read more about them, turn to page 10. To join TMS, visit www.tms.org/Society/Membership.aspx.

Vol. 63 No. 6 • JOM www.tms.org/jom.html 99