4.4 Article

Surface-enhanced Raman scattering study of the healing of radial fractures treated with or without Huo-Xue-Hua-Yu decoction therapy

期刊

LASER PHYSICS LETTERS
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1612-2011/11/11/115602

关键词

surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS); Huo-Xue-Hua-Yu decoction (HXHYD); fracture healing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61405036, 61210016, 61178090, 61178083, 11104030]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2013J01330]
  3. Developmental Fund of CHEN Ke-ji Integrative Medicine [CKJ2011010]
  4. Science and Technology Project of Fujian Province [WKJ-FJ-01]
  5. program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT 1115]
  6. Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine [X2013022, X2013024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess, through surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) spectroscopy, the incorporation of calcium hydroxyapatite (CHA similar to 960 cm(-1)) and other biochemical substances in the repair of complete radial fractures in rabbits treated with or without Huo-Xue-Hua-Yu decoction (HXHYD) therapy. A total of 18 rabbits with complete radial fractures were randomly divided into two groups; one group was treated with HXHYD therapy and the other without therapy acted as a control. The animals were sacrificed at 15, 30 and 45 d after surgery. Specimens were routinely prepared for SERS measurement and high quality SERS spectra from a mixture of bone tissues and silver nanoparticles were obtained. The mineral-to-matrix ratios from the control and treated groups were calculated. Results showed that both deposition content of CHA measured by SERS spectroscopy and the mineral-to-matrix ratio in the treated group were always greater than those of the control group during the experiment, demonstrating that HXHYD therapy is effective in improving fracture healing and that SERS spectroscopy might be a novel tool to assess fracture healing.

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

4.4
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