4.3 Article

In vitro degradation and cell response of calcium carbonate composite ceramic in comparison with other synthetic bone substitute materials

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.02.019

关键词

Calcium carbonate; Phosphate-based glass; Calcium phosphate; In vitro degradation; Cell response

资金

  1. Major Science and Technology Program of Guangdong Province of China [2012A080203002]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2014M552181]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The robust calcium carbonate composite ceramics (CC/PG) can be acquired by fast sintering calcium carbonate at a low temperature (650 degrees C) using a biocompatible, degradable phosphate-based glass (PG) as sintering agent. In the present study, the in vitro degradation and cell response of CC/PG were assessed and compared with 4 synthetic bone substitute materials, calcium carbonate ceramic (CC), PG, hydroxyapatite (HA) and p-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) ceramics. The degradation rates in decreasing order were as follows: PG, CC, CC/PG,beta-TCP, and HA. The proliferation of rat bone mesenchymal stem cells (rMSCs) cultured on the CC/PG was comparable with that on CC and PG, but inferior to HA and beta-TCP. The alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity of rMSCs on CC/ PG was lower than PG, comparable with beta-TCP, but higher than HA. The rMSCs on CC/PG and PG had enhanced gene expression in specific osteogenic markers, respectively. Compared to HA and beta-TCP, the rMSCs on the CC/PG expressed relatively lower level of collagen I and runt-related transcription factor 2, but showed more considerable expression of osteopontin. Although CC, PG, HA, and beta-TCP possessed impressive performances in some specific aspects, they faced extant intrinsic drawbacks in either degradation rate or mechanical strength. Based on considerable compressive strength, moderate degradation rate, good cell response, and being free of obvious shortcoming, the CC/PG is promising as another choice for bone substitute materials. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据