Electrochemical Performance and Cytocompatibility of HVOF-Sprayed Cr₃C₂-20(Ni20Cr)-20HAp-XSi Coatings for Dental Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

（1）The abstract provides a good overview but could be more concise. Consider summarizing the key findings in a more streamlined manner.
（2）The introduction covers relevant background but could better highlight the novelty of the study. Explicitly state the gap this work fills.
（3）The HVOF process parameters are well-described, but more details on powder preparation would strengthen reproducibility.
（4）Discuss potential amorphous phases (broad peaks) in more depth, as they may influence coating performance.
（5）Clarify why C5’s higher charge transfer resistance contradicts its poorer corrosion performance.
（6）Address how thickness variations (C1: 140 µm vs. C5: 35 µm) impact comparative electrochemical results.
（7）Include error bars or statistical analysis in Table 4 to validate IC50 reproducibility.
（8）Elaborate on why Si content >10% (C5) reduces cytocompatibility despite its known bioactivity.

（9）The latest article about “<Due to cost and processing advantages, non-precious alloys are more frequently used in clinical practice [4]. Recent advancements in dental implantology have focused on enhancing the interaction between these alloys and bone tissue to promote efficient osseointegration.>” should be cited for great correlations with the correlative discusses about the statement “<This statement connects to the Steel 45 study’s emphasis on cost-effective solutions (air spraying) for corrosion protection, as both address practical, economical coating methods to improve material performance in industrial applications.>” ——“Robust Bioinspired Ceramic-Based Superhydrophobic Al₂O₃-STA@WPU Composite Coating via Air Spraying: A Strategy in Enhancing Mechanical Stability and Corrosion Resistance for Steel 45[J]. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2025, 37: 3089-3104.”.
（10）Justify the choice of 168 h for OCP/EIS tests—does this simulate long-term oral exposure?
（11）Discuss practical implications (e.g., expected implant lifespan) based on electrochemical/biological results.

（12）The latest article about “<"To address these limitations, surface modification strategies have been developed to enhance corrosion resistance and improve biocompatibility. Such strategies include the application of ceramic-based coatings, such as oxides, nitrides, and carbides, deposited by techniques like physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), sol-gel, and thermal spray [7, 8].>” should be cited for great correlations with the correlative discusses about the statement “<This sentence directly aligns with the Al-Li alloy study’s focus on ceramic-based coatings (STA@TiO2/PU) for corrosion resistance, as both highlight surface modification via deposition techniques (thermal spray vs. spraying process) to mitigate corrosion.>” ——“Robust, fluorine-free, bioinspired PU superhydrophobic composite coating based on modified ceramics nanoparticle: Preparation, characterization and mechanism[J]. Progress in Organic Coatings, 2025, 204: 109226.”.

Author Response

Response document:

Reviewer 1

（1）The abstract provides a good overview but could be more concise. Consider summarizing the key findings in a more streamlined manner.

- In the abstract, the phrase “poorest electrochemical performance” could be reworded to a more formal expression such as “lowest electrochemical stability” or “lowest corrosion resistance.”

R// Thank you for the helpful suggestions. The abstract was revised to be more concise, with key findings summarized in a more streamlined manner. Additionally, the phrase “poorest electrochemical performance” was reworded to “reduced electrochemical stability” to improve formality and clarity, as recommended. The changes made can be found in the revised manuscript text highlighted in red.

（2）The introduction covers relevant background but could better highlight the novelty of the study. Explicitly state the gap this work fills.

R// Thank you for the valuable comment. The last paragraph of the introduction has been revised to better highlight the novelty of this work. The following text was added:

“Despite the extensive research on individual coating compositions such as Cr₃C₂–NiCr, hydroxyapatite, and silicon-doped systems, the synergistic integration of these materials using the HVOF technique remains largely underexplored in the specific context of dental implants, where multifunctional coatings are especially needed. Thus, a critical gap exists in the development of unified, hybrid coatings that combine high hardness, wear resistance, bioactivity, and corrosion stability in a single layer tailored for the oral environment. In this context, …”

(3）The HVOF process parameters are well-described, but more details on powder preparation would strengthen reproducibility.

R// Thank you for this observation. Additional details regarding the powder preparation have been incorporated into the manuscript. The updated description is as follows:

 “The powder mixtures were prepared using a roll mill operating at 300 rpm and 25 °C. The mixing was conducted in dry conditions under ambient atmosphere and without using milling balls. Four different powder mixtures were formulated on a weight percentage basis as follows: (1) Cr₃C₂-20%HAp (wt%), (2) Cr₃C₂-20%HAp-5%Si (wt%), (3) Cr₃C₂-20%HAp-10%Si (wt%), and (4) Cr₃C₂-20%HAp-20%Si (wt%). Prior to mixing, all powders were dried at 90°C for 4h to eliminate moisture. After mixing, the powders were stored in sealed containers under dry conditions until further use for HVOF spraying.”

（4）Discuss potential amorphous phases (broad peaks) in more depth, as they may influence coating performance.

R// Thank you for your comment. The XRD results and discussion section has been revised to address this point in more detail. The corresponding paragraph was updated as follows:

 “This broadening is most noticeable in the peaks associated with the Cr₇C₃ phase and became more pronounced as the silicon content increased. Such broadening can be attributed to the coexistence of amorphous and crystalline structures within the coatings. This interpretation is consistent with reports in the literature that associate broad XRD peaks in this range with the formation of metastable amorphous phases in NiCr-based alloys, being silicon an element with a tendency to form amorphous phases under rapid cooling conditions [36-41]. The presence of amorphous phases in these coatings can significantly influence their overall performance. On the positive side, silicon-containing amorphous phases often enhance bioactivity, as they typically participate in dissolution processes in physiological environments [42]. On the downside, amorphous phases are generally less stable than their crystalline counterparts, which may negatively impact the wear resistance of coatings, an essential property for dental applications where mechanical stress and abrasion are prevalent. In particular, the long-term mechanical stability of amorphous phases is a concern, as dissolution processes of Si-based amorphous phases may alter the coating’s mechanical behavior [43]. Although this study primarily focuses on electrochemical and in-vitro performance, the influence of silicon content on the formation of amorphous phases and its subsequent effect on coating´s mechanical properties is a topic that deserves further investigation. In fact, future work should address critical mechanical aspects such as adhesion strength and wear resistance. These are essential aspects for dental applications, as demonstrated in similar systems that perform well under simulated masticatory conditions [44-46].”.

（5）Clarify why C5’s higher charge transfer resistance contradicts its poorer corrosion performance.

R// Thanks for this comment. Although the C5 coating exhibited relatively higher charge transfer resistance (Rct) values compared to C3 and C4, this does not directly indicate superior corrosion resistance. In this case, the higher resistance in C5 is not a reflection of a more protective or stable passive layer, but rather the result of electrolyte penetration reaching the substrate, leading to the formation of a new interface with distinct electrochemical behavior. This interface may temporarily exhibit higher Rct due to localized electrochemical reactions or the formation of corrosion products that partially hinder charge transfer. However, other indicators, such as the low phase angle values, the shift toward lower frequencies in the EIS spectra, and the increased solution resistance, point toward a diffusion-controlled degradation mechanism and coating dissolution, both of which are consistent with poor corrosion performance. Furthermore, SEM-BSE images confirm reduced thickness and increased heterogeneity in C5, supporting the conclusion that despite the apparently high Rct, the coating is structurally compromised and allows for aggressive species to reach the substrate. Thus, in this context, the high Rct value does not contradict the observed corrosion behavior when interpreted alongside the full set of electrochemical and structural data.

To clarify this point in the text, the following text was added:

 “Although higher charge transfer resistance values typically suggest better corrosion resistance, in this case these values likely result from interfacial changes due to substrate exposure and the formation of corrosion products, rather than from a more protective coating”.

 

（6）Address how thickness variations (C1: 140 µm vs. C5: 35 µm) impact comparative electrochemical results.

R// Thank you for your comment. The substantial difference in coating thickness between C1 (140 µm) and C5 (35 µm) plays a significant role in their electrochemical behavior. Thicker coatings like C1 act as more effective physical barriers against electrolyte penetration, delaying the onset of corrosion processes. This results in higher impedance values and more stable phase angle responses, indicating improved protective performance. In contrast, the reduced thickness of C5 shortens the diffusion path for aggressive ionic species and often corresponds to lower structural integrity. These factors facilitate electrolyte access to the underlying substrate, which helps explain the inferior electrochemical performance observed for C5, despite the presence of bioactive phases. The difference in electrochemical behavior among coatings is already addressed in the Results and Discussion section, where, for instance, the inferior performance of C5 is attributed to a combination of factors, including microstructural characteristics (thickness and porosity), and compositional differences.

（7）Include error bars or statistical analysis in Table 4 to validate IC50 reproducibility.

R// Thanks. Error was added for sample C5. Check reviewer 2, question 2, for further explanation.

（8）Elaborate on why Si content >10% (C5) reduces cytocompatibility despite its known bioactivity.

R// Thank you for your observation. Although silicon is widely recognized for enhancing bioactivity, especially at moderate concentrations, a Si content above 10% (as in C5) may reduce cytocompatibility due to excessive ion release. High levels of soluble Si species can lead to local increases in pH and ionic strength, potentially creating a microenvironment that is unfavorable for cell adhesion and proliferation. Furthermore, elevated dissolution rates associated with high Si content may result in unstable surface chemistry and structural degradation, both of which can negatively affect cellular response. These effects have been reported in previous studies, where high concentrations of bioactive ions were shown to shift cellular behavior from stimulatory to inhibitory. As noted in the manuscript, this is reflected in the following statement:

 “High concentration and dissolution of Si-rich phases have been previously reported to alter the local ionic strength, pH, and surface chemistry, all of which may contribute to changes in cell viability behavior [73].” To further clarify and support the results, we have added the following statements to the discussion of cytocompatibility results:

Text added:

“This result is also supported by previous studies, such as in Si/Sr-co-doped HAp coatings, where Si contents around 8 wt% significantly enhanced osteogenic potential without any risk of negative cellular responses [72].”

Text added:

“In fact, similar dose-dependent cytotoxic effects have been previously reported, where high concentrations of Si particles reduced cell viability and triggered oxidative stress and inflammatory responses [74], supporting the fact that excessive Si metal content can shift the surface from being bioactive to cytotoxic.”

 

（9）The latest article about “<Due to cost and processing advantages, non-precious alloys are more frequently used in clinical practice [4]. Recent advancements in dental implantology have focused on enhancing the interaction between these alloys and bone tissue to promote efficient osseointegration.>” should be cited for great correlations with the correlative discusses about the statement “<This statement connects to the Steel 45 study’s emphasis on cost-effective solutions (air spraying) for corrosion protection, as both address practical, economical coating methods to improve material performance in industrial applications.>” ——“Robust Bioinspired Ceramic-Based Superhydrophobic Al₂O₃-STA@WPU Composite Coating via Air Spraying: A Strategy in Enhancing Mechanical Stability and Corrosion Resistance for Steel 45[J]. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2025, 37: 3089-3104.”.

R// Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding this recent article. We appreciate the relevance of this work, especially given its strong correlation with our discussion. In response to your comment, we have added the suggested reference to the revised manuscript.

（10）Justify the choice of 168 h for OCP/EIS tests—does this simulate long-term oral exposure?

R// Thank you for your thoughtful question regarding the choice of a 168-hour (7-day) duration for the OCP and EIS tests. This selection was intended to simulate the early-stage degradation and electrochemical behavior of the coatings under exposure to a simulated physiological environment. Although it does not fully represent long-term in vivo conditions, this time frame is commonly used in the literature (check references below) to assess initial coating stability, ion release trends, and early-stage corrosion mechanisms relevant to the critical healing period after implantation. To support this choice, we have added the following references to section 2.2 “Structural and electrochemical evaluation”:

[33] Romonți, D. C., Voicu, G., & Prodana, M. (2015). Electrochemical behavior of coated and uncoated nonprecious CoCr and NiCr alloys in artificial and natural saliva. International Journal of Electrochemical Science, 10(9), 6935-6945.

[34] Zhu, M., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Xu, Q., & Liu, M. (2024). Corrosion characteristic of vitallium 2000 CoCrMo casting alloy in fluoride containing artificial saliva. International Journal of Electrochemical Science, 19(8), 100690.

（11）Discuss practical implications (e.g., expected implant lifespan) based on electrochemical/biological results.

R// The combined electrochemical and cytocompatibility results provide valuable insight into the expected in-service behavior and potential lifespan of these coatings in dental implant applications. Coatings C1 to C4 demonstrated favorable electrochemical stability (e.g., higher impedance, lower phase angle dispersion) and sustained cytocompatibility over time, suggesting good resistance to degradation and minimal release of harmful species. This implies that such coatings are likely to support long-term implant performance by maintaining a protective barrier against corrosion and providing a biocompatible surface for tissue integration, particularly during the critical healing phase and beyond.

In contrast, the C5 coating, despite initial bioactivity, showed signs of progressive degradation and time-dependent cytotoxicity, which could compromise its performance over time. The lower coating thickness, higher porosity, and increased silicon content in C5 are associated with faster ion release and coating dissolution, potentially shortening the functional lifespan of the implant and increasing the risk of local tissue irritation or inflammatory response.

From a practical standpoint, coatings like C2 to C4 appear most suitable for long-term clinical use, as they balance bioactivity with structural stability. These coatings may contribute to extended implant lifespan by promoting early osseointegration while resisting long-term electrochemical degradation. Further in vivo studies are needed to confirm these expectations, but the current results suggest that appropriate control of silicon content (≤10%) and coating microstructure is critical to ensure durable, biocompatible dental implants.

The last paragraph in section 3 was modified as follows:

 “From a practical standpoint, coatings like C2 to C4 appear most suitable for clinical use, as they balance bioactivity with structural stability. These coatings may contribute to extended implant lifespan by promoting early osseointegration while resisting electrochemical degradation. The cytocompatibility results demonstrate that C1 to C4 coatings are suitable candidates for dental applications involving direct contact with saliva, soft tissues, or bone, as they maintain high cell viability across all tested concentrations and testing times. This behavior is linked to their bioactive nature, resulting from the synergistic effects of HAp and silicon incorporation…..”.

（12）The latest article about “<"To address these limitations, surface modification strategies have been developed to enhance corrosion resistance and improve biocompatibility. Such strategies include the application of ceramic-based coatings, such as oxides, nitrides, and carbides, deposited by techniques like physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), sol-gel, and thermal spray [7, 8].>” should be cited for great correlations with the correlative discusses about the statement “<This sentence directly aligns with the Al-Li alloy study’s focus on ceramic-based coatings (STA@TiO2/PU) for corrosion resistance, as both highlight surface modification via deposition techniques (thermal spray vs. spraying process) to mitigate corrosion.>” ——“Robust, fluorine-free, bioinspired PU superhydrophobic composite coating based on modified ceramics nanoparticle: Preparation, characterization and mechanism[J]. Progress in Organic Coatings, 2025, 204: 109226.”.

R// Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding this recent article. We appreciate the relevance of this work, especially given its strong correlation with our discussion. In response to your comment, we have added the suggested reference to the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Evaluation

The manuscript presents a comprehensive study on the electrochemical performance and cytocompatibility of Cr₃C₂–20(Ni20Cr)–20HAp–XSi coatings fabricated by HVOF spraying for dental applications. The integration of silicon as a dopant and the correlation between microstructural features, electrochemical behavior, and biological response are relevant and timely topics in dental biomaterials research. The work is generally well-structured, supported by detailed experimental data, and benefits from a clear connection between methods and conclusions. The combination of electrochemical analysis, structural characterization, and cytotoxicity testing is a strong point.

Strengths

1. Comprehensive characterization – The authors employ SEM/EDS, XRD, multiple electrochemical techniques (OCP, PDP, LPR, EIS), and cytocompatibility assays, ensuring a robust evaluation.
2. Clear correlation between results and interpretation – The discussion effectively links microstructural observations with electrochemical behavior and biological outcomes.
3. Novelty in composition – The combination of Cr₃C₂–NiCr–HAp with varying Si content for dental implants is innovative and well-justified in the introduction.
4. Application relevance – The work is highly applicable to the development of dental implant coatings with improved bioactivity and corrosion resistance.

Points for Improvement

1. Clarity and conciseness
• While the manuscript is detailed, some sections (especially in the results/discussion) could be more concise to improve readability. Certain descriptions repeat earlier points, particularly regarding the role of HAp and silicon.
• Figures could be referenced more efficiently; some descriptions reiterate visual observations that could be condensed.
2. Statistical analysis of biological data
• The MTT assay results are reported only as IC₅₀ values without statistical comparisons between groups. Including mean viability ± SD and performing statistical analysis (e.g., ANOVA) would strengthen the conclusions on cytocompatibility.
3. Electrochemical data interpretation
• The EIS discussion is solid, but quantitative fitting with equivalent circuit models could further substantiate the proposed mechanisms (e.g., dual-layer structure, porous vs. compact regions).
• Providing comparative numerical values (Rct, CPE, etc.) in a table would facilitate the reader’s interpretation.
4. Coating adhesion and mechanical performance
• Since the work targets dental applications, adhesion strength, wear resistance, or mechanical stability under simulated masticatory loads would be relevant. At least a brief mention or reference to related work with similar systems would be valuable.
5. Long-term stability
• The electrochemical tests were conducted for 168 h, but in vivo conditions involve much longer exposures. A discussion of potential long-term degradation mechanisms, based on current findings, would enhance the practical relevance.
6. Minor editorial issues
• Ensure consistent use of units (e.g., µg/mL vs. μg/mL).
• Some references in the introduction could be updated with the most recent works from the last 1–2 years to strengthen the contextual framework.
• In the abstract, the phrase “poorest electrochemical performance” could be reworded to a more formal expression such as “lowest electrochemical stability” or “lowest corrosion resistance.”

Recommendation
The manuscript is of high quality and provides meaningful insights for the development of multifunctional coatings in dental implantology. With minor revisions addressing statistical analysis of cytocompatibility data, minor editorial polishing, and optional inclusion of additional electrochemical modeling or mechanical performance discussion, it would be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Points for Improvement

(1) Clarity and conciseness: While the manuscript is detailed, some sections (especially in the results/discussion) could be more concise to improve readability. Certain descriptions repeat earlier points, particularly regarding the role of HAp and silicon. Figures could be referenced more efficiently; some descriptions reiterate visual observations that could be condensed.

R// Thank you for this valuable feedback. The “Results and Discussion” section was modified accordingly. All modifications can be found in the revised manuscript text highlighted in red. Please refer to the updated version of the paper. We believe that the modifications and additions included in this new version of this section will allow the reader to better understand the relevance of the results reported here.

(2) Statistical analysis of biological data: the MTT assay results are reported only as IC₅₀ values without statistical comparisons between groups. Including mean viability ± SD and performing statistical analysis (e.g., ANOVA) would strengthen the conclusions on cytocompatibility.

R// Thank you for the observation. The IC₅₀ value for the C5 coating (535.7 ± 67.2 µg/mL) has been updated to include the standard error as a measure of variability. A full statistical comparison between groups was not conducted, as all other coatings exhibited IC₅₀ values exceeding 1000 µg/mL, which, according to reference [71], falls well above the threshold typically associated with cytotoxicity. Given that no significant toxicity was observed in the remaining samples, comparative statistical analysis was deemed unnecessary for the scope of this study.

(3) Electrochemical data interpretation: Providing comparative numerical values (Rct, CPE, etc.) in a table would facilitate the reader’s interpretation. The EIS discussion is solid, but quantitative fitting with equivalent circuit models could further substantiate the proposed mechanisms (e.g., dual-layer structure, porous vs. compact regions).

R// Thank you for your constructive comments regarding the EIS analysis.Regarding the suggestion to provide comparative numerical values in a table: We appreciate this helpful recommendation. In response, we have added a new Table 4, which summarizes the main electrochemical parameters obtained from the EIS measurements, for all tested samples. We believe this addition enhances clarity and facilitates comparison between the different coatings.

(4) Regarding the inclusion of equivalent circuit models to support the proposed mechanisms (e.g., dual-layer structure, porous vs. compact regions):
R// Thank you for recognizing the strength of the EIS discussion. While we agree that presenting quantitative fitting with equivalent circuit models can further support the proposed mechanisms, we respectfully decided not to include the equivalent circuit diagrams in the current version of the manuscript. This decision was based on the overall length of the article. In fact, one of the suggestions from Reviewers was to make certain sections more concise. Including circuit diagrams and additional fitting details would significantly extend the manuscript and potentially shift its focus. Nevertheless, we have ensured that the discussion is well-grounded in the electrochemical behavior of the materials and aligned with literature-supported interpretations.

 

 

(5) Coating adhesion and mechanical performance: Since the work targets dental applications, adhesion strength, wear resistance, or mechanical stability under simulated masticatory loads would be relevant. At least a brief mention or reference to related work with similar systems would be valuable.

R// Thank you for the comment. We agree that properties such as adhesion strength, wear resistance, and mechanical stability under simulated masticatory loads are highly relevant for dental applications. While the current work primarily focuses on electrochemical and in-vitro performance, we acknowledge to mention the importance of these mechanical aspects. Related studies on similar systems have demonstrated promising performance in this regard. For example, related studies [Fares, C., Hsu, S. M., Xian, M., Xia, X., Ren, F., Mecholsky Jr, J. J., ... & Esquivel-Upshaw, J. (2020). Demonstration of a SiC protective coating for titanium implants. Materials, 13(15), 3321. ; Kula, Z., Burnat, B., Dąbrowska, K., & Klimek, L. (2025). The Influence of Si (C, N) Layer Composition on the Corrosion of NiCr Prosthetic Alloy. Ceramics, 8(2), 50; Kula, Z., Dąbrowska, K., & Klimek, L. (2025). Structure and Selected Properties of Si (C, N) Coatings on Ni-Cr Prosthetic Alloys. Processes, 13(3), 624.], reported mechanical resistance of related compositions under conditions mimicking the oral environment. We have included a brief mention and appropriate references to such work in the revised manuscript to better contextualize the potential application. The following paragraph has been added to Section 3 (Results and Discussion, paragraph 5):

“In fact, future work should address critical mechanical aspects such as adhesion strength and wear resistance. These are essential aspects for dental applications, as demonstrated in similar systems that perform well under simulated masticatory conditions [44-46]”.

(6) Long-term stability: The electrochemical tests were conducted for 168 h, but in vivo conditions involve much longer exposures. A discussion of potential long-term degradation mechanisms, based on current findings, would enhance the practical relevance.

R// Thank you for the valuable comment. We agree that the 168-hour duration of the electrochemical tests represents only a short-term evaluation relative to in vivo conditions, where materials may be exposed for extended periods. To address this, we have included a discussion in Section 3, last paragraph, regarding the potential long-term degradation mechanisms of the coatings, based on the current electrochemical and microstructural findings. This addition aims to better contextualize the practical relevance and projected performance of the coatings over time:

“It is worth noting that the electrochemical tests were conducted for 168 hours to simulate early-stage exposure in an oral environment, long-term in vivo conditions may involve more complex and prolonged degradation processes. Based on the current findings, coatings such as C1 and C2, with dense microstructures, high charge transfer resistance, and capacitive behavior, are expected to offer prolonged protection against corrosion. However, coatings with higher silicon content (e.g., C5) exhibited signs of structural heterogeneity and electrolyte infiltration, which could accelerate long-term degradation via mechanisms such as increased ion diffusion, localized corrosion, or matrix dissolution. The porous nature and moderate phase angles observed in C3 and C4 suggest the potential for sustained bioactivity but also raise the possibility of gradual microstructural breakdown over time. Future studies involving extended immersion times, cyclic loading, or in vivo models would be essential to validate the long-term stability and degradation pathways of these coatings.”

(7) Minor editorial issues: Ensure consistent use of units (e.g., µg/mL vs. μg/mL).

R// Thank you for the observation. The manuscript has been carefully reviewed, and all units (e.g., µg/mL) have been corrected for consistency throughout the text.

• Some references in the introduction could be updated with the most recent works from the last 1–2 years to strengthen the contextual framework.

R// Thank you for the insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of more recent references to strengthen the contextual framework of the introduction. We have carefully reviewed and updated the cited literature accordingly. The following references from the last 1–2 years have been added to replace older sources, ensuring the manuscript reflects the current state of research:

Replaced:
Givan DA. Precious metal alloys for dental applications. In: Precious metals for biomedical applications. Woodhead Publishing; 2014.

With:
Rudolf R., Majerič P., Lazić V., Raić K. T. Advanced Dental Metallic Materials. Edition 1. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Cham. 2024. p.178.

Replaced:
Kumar DD, et al. (2019). Biocorrosion and biological properties of sputtered ceramic carbide coatings... Surf Coat Technol.

With:
Banaszek K., Dąbrowska K., Jakubowski W., Klimek L., Kula Z. The Effect of Ti (C, N)-Based Coating Composition on Ni-Cr Alloys on the Initial Adhesion of E. coli Bacteria and C. albicans Fungi. Coatings. 2025; 15(2), 121.

Replaced:
Coletti C, et al. (2007). Biocompatibility and wettability of crystalline SiC and Si surfaces. IEEE EMBS.

With:
Valoor R., Sulyaeva V., Lakshmiramanan K., Gatapova E., Ratnayake P., Kozhevnikov A., Basu B. Hemocompatibility and Preangiogenic Attributes of SiB x C y N z O m Coatings for Biomedical Applications. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2024; 16(19), 24321-24340.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf