4.5 Article

Magnetic 3D scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: bioactive glass (45S5) coated with iron-loaded hydroxyapatite nanoparticles

期刊

BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1748-605X/ac14cc

关键词

Fe(II); Fe(III); mineralization assay; bioactive glass; in vitro biological interactions; bone

资金

  1. CONICET, Argentina (DAAD, Germany)
  2. CONICET, Argentina (Ministerio de Educacion, Argentina)
  3. ANPCyT, Argentina [PICT 2015-1266]
  4. CITIUS-University of Seville (Seville, Spain) [VI-PPIT-JGLS-684]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that magnetic Fe-HA coated scaffolds based on iron-loaded hydroxyapatite nanoparticles displayed good biocompatibility in vitro, promoting hydroxyapatite formation and providing support for human MG-63 cells and mouse ST-2 cell line.
Magnetic 45S5 bioactive glass (BG) based scaffolds covered with iron-loaded hydroxyapatite (Fe-HA-BG) nanoparticles were obtained and its cytotoxicity investigated. Fe-HA nanoparticles were synthesized by a wet chemical method involving the simultaneous addition of Fe2+/Fe3+ ions. BG based scaffolds were prepared by the foam replica procedure and covered with Fe-HA by dip-coating. Fe-HA-BG magnetic saturation values of 0.049 emu g(-1) and a very low remanent magnetization of 0.01 emu g(-1) were observed. The mineralization assay in simulated body fluid following Kokubo's protocol indicated that Fe-HA-BG scaffolds exhibited improved hydroxyapatite formation in comparison to uncoated scaffolds at shorter immersion times. The biocompatibility of the material in vitro was assessed using human osteoblast-like MG-63 cell cultures and mouse bone marrow-derived stroma cell line ST-2. Overall, the results herein discussed suggest that magnetic Fe-HA coatings seem to enhance the biological performance of 45S5 BG based scaffolds. Thus, this magnetic Fe-HA coated scaffold is an interesting system for bone tissue engineering applications and warrant further investigation.

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