4.7 Article

Nanosized HCA-coated borate bioactive glass with improved wound healing effects on rodent model

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 426, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.130299

关键词

Bioactive glass; nano-HCA@BG; Dynamic immersion; Porous structure; Wound healing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1732155, 3190110313, U1632274]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2016YFA0400901]
  3. Doctor Research Fund of Henan University of Technology [2019BS019]
  4. HighMagnetic Field Laboratory of Anhui Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel approach was proposed to produce nano-HCA@BG for soft tissue repair, which improved biocompatibility through a porous structure and surface-coated amorphous HCA layer. The HCA-coated nanoporous architecture significantly promoted cell growth and proliferation, benefiting wound healing in rodent skin defects.
Borate bioactive glass (BBG) stimulates angiogenesis and promotes cell growth. However, controlling the degradation rate of BBG and maintaining the critical concentration of bioactive ions suitable for cell promotion and differentiation remain great challenges in soft tissue repair. In this study, a novel approach was proposed to produce nanosized CO32- -containing hydroxyapatite (HCA)-coated BBG (nano-HCA@BG). Unlike the previously reported hard-to-degrade hydroxyapatite (HA) coating after static soaking treatment of BBG, the nano-HCA@BG, obtained by dynamically immersing the BBG powder in a flowing buffer, had a porous structure and was surfacecoated with a layer of amorphous HCA, which improved the biocompatibility and retained the biodegradability of BBG. The effects of nano-HCA@BG were evaluated and compared with those of powdered BBG at the cellular and animal levels. The formation of the HCA-coated nanoporous architecture significantly improves biocompatibility, promotes cell growth and proliferation, and is beneficial for wound healing in rodent skin defects.

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

4.7
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