“…In the first coating method, the samples were coated with AP, then maleimide, that reacted with the cysteine of the R-G-D-C to yield a strong covalently bound organic coating, that was resistant to removal by sonication, solvent washing, or by mechanical peeling with tape as proven in the work of several studies. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] On the other hand, and in contrast to the findings of Syam et al, 10 and Schliephake et al, 18 the surface coatings resulting from the second and third methods in this study did not have the same FT-IR peak intensities or surface binding energy, in addition to the possibility of their removal by friction during implant insertion in the osteotomies, a fact that further favors the use of the first method in spite of its sensitivity and complexity. However, taking the complexity of the first coating method into consideration, other methods for RGD surface immobilization tried in other studies had a more complex nature, for example, Georgieva et al, 11 used a gelatin solution and ultrasound to deposit the RGD sequence, which represented a more complex and sensitive method than those used in this study, and Chen et al, 12 who incorporated the RGD in a poly-amino acid coating to improve the performance of orthopedic implants, resulting a surface porous structure which had for the first method (red colored curve), and for the second method (black colored curve), and for the third method (green colored curve).…”