4.8 Article

Calcium carbonate: Adored and ignored in bioactivity assessment

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 35-47

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.04.039

关键词

Calcium carbonate; Hydroxyapatite; Bone bonding; Bioactivity; Simulated body fluid; Bioactive glass; Calcium phosphate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The title of this article could sound a bit curious to some readers since a layer of apatite - and not calcium carbonate - is well-known to form on the surface of bioactive glasses upon immersion in simulated body fluids. However, calcium carbonate (commonly reported as calcite crystals) can form on the surface of bioactive glasses as well, instead of or in competition with hydroxyapatite, during in vitro tests. Major factors that govern calcium carbonate formation are a high concentration of Ca2+ ions in the testing solution - and, in this regard, glass composition/texture and type of medium play key roles - along with the volume of solution used during in vitro tests. To date, this phenomenon has received relatively little attention and is still partly unexplored. This article provides a critical overview of the available literature on this topic in order to stimulate constructive discussion among biomaterials scientists and further research for better understanding the mechanisms involved in glass bioactivity. Statement of Significance A literature search indicates that a layer of apatite - and not calcium carbonate - is well known to form on the surface of biomaterials during the bioactivity assessment. However, calcium carbonate can form on the surface as well, instead of or in competition with apatite. To date, this phenomenon has received relatively little attention and is still partly unexplored. This review provides a critical overview of the available literature on this topic in order to stimulate constructive discussions that can be further useful for clinical success. (C) 2019 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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