4.5 Article

Biocompatibility and mechanical properties of pigeon bone waste extracted natural nano-hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mseb.2020.114950

关键词

Biocompatibility; Bone; Bio-waste materials; Tissue engineering; Compressive strength; Nano-hydroxyapatite; Nanomaterials

资金

  1. Amirkabir University of Technology
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT [2020M2D8A206983011]
  3. Basic Science Research Program through the National 18 Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1A2B3009135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Naturally derived nano-hydroxyapatite (PHA) was prepared from waste pigeon bones using ball milling, with an average particle size of 50-250 nm. Sintering the nanoparticles at 1050 degrees C resulted in a Ca/P ratio of 1.7 and improved hardness and compressive strength. Alkaline phosphatase analysis and MTT assay showed significant enhancement in osteoblast cell activity and proliferation compared to synthetic HAp.
One of the common bioactive materials used for clinical and biomedical applications is hydroxyapatite (HAp). Bio-waste materials are one of the major natural sources for the preparation of this bio-ceramic powder. Herein, naturally derived nano-HAp was prepared using the ball milling process after annealing of waste pigeon bones at 850 degrees C followed by cold-pressing the nanoparticles and re-sintering at 850, 950, 1050, and 1150 degrees C. The ball-milled pigeon-derived nano-hydroxyapatite (PHA) had an average particle size in the range of 50-250 nm and the Ca/P ratio of the sample sintered at 1050 degrees C was 1.7. Moreover, the hardness and compressive strength of sintered nano-HAp were improved to 47.57 MPa and 3.7 GPa, respectively by increasing the sintering temperature. Furthermore, alkaline phosphatase analysis and MTT assay of PHA indicated significant enhancement in the activity and proliferation of osteoblast cells during the culturing period in comparison to synthetic HAp.

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

4.5
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