4.7 Article

Influence of single and binary doping of strontium and lithium on in vivo biological properties of bioactive glass scaffolds

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep32964

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CSIR 12th five year plan programme (BIOCERAM)
  2. CSIR-Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute
  3. CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata, India
  4. Vice Chancellor, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata, India

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Effects of strontium and lithium ion doping on the biological properties of bioactive glass (BAG) porous scaffolds have been checked in vitro and in vivo. BAG scaffolds were prepared by conventional glass melting route and subsequently, scaffolds were produced by evaporation of fugitive pore formers. After thorough physico-chemical and in vitro cell characterization, scaffolds were used for pre-clinical study. Soft and hard tissue formation in a rabbit femoral defect model after 2 and 4 months, were assessed using different tools. Histological observations showed excellent osseous tissue formation in Sr and Li + Sr scaffolds and moderate bone regeneration in Li scaffolds. Fluorochrome labeling studies showed wide regions of new bone formation in Sr and Li + Sr doped samples as compared to Li doped samples. SEM revealed abundant collagenous network and minimal or no interfacial gap between bone and implant in Sr and Li + Sr doped samples compared to Li doped samples. Micro CT of Li + Sr samples showed highest degree of peripheral cancellous tissue formation on periphery and cortical tissues inside implanted samples and vascularity among four compositions. Our findings suggest that addition of Sr and/or Li alters physico-chemical properties of BAG and promotes early stage in vivo osseointegration and bone remodeling that may offer new insight in bone tissue engineering.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available