Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 28.
Published in final edited form as: ACS Infect Dis. 2021 Nov 11;7(12):3125–3160. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.1c00465

Table 1.

Summary of Advantages and Limitations of Metallic Antimicrobial Biomaterials from the Past Decade Designed for Orthopedic Implant-Associated Infection Applications

metals
composition tested in vivo? antimicrobial activity advantages limitations ref
titanium oxide nanocoating on titanium no bacterial clearance of 80–90% CFUs, inhibit adhesion 80% bacteria (1) intrinsic activity (1) leach metal particles (cytotoxicity/genotoxicity) 49, 50
(2) long-lasting
(3) decreased resistance
titanium oxide coated titanium and titanium hydride powder coated on porous titanium no inhibit adhesion 80% bacteria (1) intrinsic activity (1) leach metal particles (cytotoxicity/genotoxicity) 51
(2) long-lasting
(3) decreased resistance
silver and copper nanoparticle coated titanium oxide on Ti6Al4V no inhibit adhesion 100% bacteria (1) intrinsic activity (1) leach metal particles (cytotoxicity/genotoxicity) 52
(2) long-lasting
(3) decreased resistance
silver and zinc nanoparticle coated titanium oxide on Ti6Al4V no inhibit adhesion 100% bacteria (1) intrinsic activity (1) leach metal particles (cytotoxicity/genotoxicity) 53
(2) long-lasting
(3) promotes osseointegration
titanium–copper-oxide coated Ti6Al4V no 2log10 decrease in bacterial adhesion (1) intrinsic activity (1) leach metal particles (cytotoxicity/genotoxicity) 56
(2) long-lasting
fluorine- and phosphorus doped nanostructured Ti6Al4V yes not evaluated, used to detect presence of infection (1) intrinsic activity (1) leach metal particles (cytotoxicity/genotoxicity) 40
(2) long-lasting
(3) promotes osseointegration
magnesium alloy yes limited in vivo, requires modification (1) intrinsic activity (1) limited duration of activity 59
(2) antimicrobial activity in vitro superior to in vivo