4.6 Article

Development and Characterization of Composites Consisting of Calcium Phosphate Cements and Mesoporous Bioactive Glass for Extrusion-Based Fabrication

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma12122022

关键词

calcium phosphate cement; mesoporous bioactive glass; additive manufacturing; 3D plotting; strontium ion release

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the Collaborative Research Centre Transregio 79 [SFB/TR79]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calcium phosphate cements (CPC) and mesoporous bioactive glasses (MBG) are two degradable biomaterial groups widely under investigation concerning their applicability to treat bone defects. MBG-CPC composites were recently shown to possess enhanced degradation properties in comparison to pure CPC. In addition, modification of MBG allows an easy incorporation of therapeutically effective ions. Additive manufacturing of such composites enables the fabrication of patient-specific geometries with further improved degradation behavior due to control over macroporosity. In this study, we developed composites prepared from a non-aqueous carrier-liquid (cl) based CPC paste and MBG particles suitable for extrusion-based additive manufacturing (3D plotting). CPC with the addition of up to 10 wt % MBG were processible by adjusting the amount of cl. Scaffolds consisting of a 4, 6 and 8%-MBG-CPC composite were successfully manufactured by 3D plotting. While mechanically characterization of the scaffolds showed an influence of the MBG, no changes of microstructure were observed. During degradation of the composite, the release of Ca2+ and Sr2+ ions could be controlled by the MBG composition and plotted scaffolds with macropores showed a significant higher release than bulk samples of comparable mass. These findings demonstrate a high flexibility regarding ion release of the developed composites and suggest utilizing the drug binding capacities of MBG as a prospective delivery system for biologically active proteins.

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

4.6
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