Microstructure and Properties of Hydroxyapatite Coatings Made by Aerosol Cold Spraying–Sintering Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydroxyapatite is a widely used material used for the bioactivation of an implant’s surface. A promising hydroxyapatite coating approach is the kinetic deposition of powder particles. The possibility of solid-state deposition improvement through the merging of Aerosol Deposition and Low Pressure Cold Spraying techniques is a promising prospect for improving the deposition efficiency and the quality of coatings. The objective of the paper is to study the possibilities of hydroxyapatite coating structure modification through changes in the coating process and post-heat treatment. The novel Aerosol Cold Spraying system joining Low Pressure Cold Spraying and Aerosol Deposition was used for the deposition of coatings. The coating’s post-processing was conducted using two techniques: Spark Plasma Sintering and Pressureless Sintering. The coating’s structure was examined using scanning, transmission, and light microscopy, and X-ray diffraction. Substrate–coating bond strength was assessed using a tensile test. Homogenous buildup using Aerosol Cold Spraying of hydroxyapatite was achieved. Various pores and microcracks were visible in the sprayed coatings. The deposition process and the thermal post-processing did not lead to significant degradation of the hydroxyapatite phase. As a result of the Spark Plasma Sintering and Pressureless Sintering at 800 °C, an increase in tensile adhesion bond strength and crystal size was obtained.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".