Orthopaedic implant updates, in vitro study: Cytotoxicity comparison between stainless steel and magnesium implants
Nugroho Prawoto RP., Wardhana TH.
Laboratory Study, published in J Clin Orthop Trauma (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- J Clin Orthop Trauma (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39990630
- PMCID
- PMC11840515
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcot.2025.102925
Abstract (original English)
Background Stainless steels are low-cost, biocompatible, and strong but it is not biodegradable. Therefore, implants from stainless steel to fixate bone fractures necessitate a second surgery for implant removal. Biodegradable implants have been widely researched to avoid second surgery for implant removal. However, the implant's safety (toxicity) when absorbed into the body has not been widely elicited. Methods This research was a true experimental study to compare 4 implants: Stainless Steel, Magnesium-Based, Magnesium with Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO) coating, and magnesium with poly lactic acid (PLA) composite with MTT Assay. Results Cells exposed to stainless steel implants have significantly less optical density (0.3546) than the magnesium implants group (0.4685; p Conclusion Magnesium implants were found to be significantly less toxic compared to stainless steel in this study. Amongst magnesium implants, magnesium with PEO coating was found to be the least toxic. However, further studies are required to ensure its safety in human usage.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.