3.9 Article

Changes in Bone Quality Associated with the Mineralization of New Bone Formed Around Implants - Using XPS, Polarized Microscopy, and FTIR imaging

期刊

JOURNAL OF HARD TISSUE BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 101-109

出版社

JOURNAL HARD TISSUE BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.2485/jhtb.19.101

关键词

Bone healing; FTIR; XPS; Polarized microscopy; Implant

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [22791942]
  2. Nihon University
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22791942] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in bone quality associated with the mineralization of new bone forming around implants. Eight 18-week-old male New Zealand white rabbits and implants fabricated from Ti-15%Zr-4%Nb-4% Ta alloy were used in the study. Characteristics of new bone formed around implants at 4 and 8 weeks and cortical bone were compared using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) for elemental qualitative and quantitative analysis, polarized microscopy (PM) for histological examination, and Fourier transform infrared Imaging (FTIR Imaging) to characterize molecular distributions in new bone and cortical bone. Results from XPS analysis showed changes in the chemical bonding in new bone over time (4 weeks vs. 8 weeks). PM showed changes in collagen birefringence, orientation and intensity in new bone over time, becoming more similar to those of cortical bone after 8 weeks. FTIR Imaging showed that in new bone close to cortical bone, amounts of PO43- and CO32- ions (representing mineral or inorganic components), and amounts of amide I (representing the organic component) increased over time as mineralization progressed. In new bone more distant from cortical bone, PO43-, CO32-, and amide I distributions also increased over time, but to a lesser extent to that observed near cortical bone. Our findings clearly showed changes in the quality of new bone forming around implants, and these changes were related to mineralization.

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

3.9
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