4.7 Article

Bioinspired strontium magnesium phosphate cement prepared utilizing the precursor method for bone tissue engineering

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1142095

关键词

bioinspired; precursor method; strontium magnesium phosphate; bone tissue engineering; biological activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioinspired strontium magnesium phosphate cements (SMPCs) with excellent mechanical strengths and high biocompatibilities were prepared using a new, facile and environmentally friendly precursor method. The SMPC-2, containing 0.5 mol strontium, showed higher degradation rate and biological activity than magnesium phosphate cements and other SMPCs. The synergistic effect of strontium and magnesium ion release from SMPC-2 created a conducive environment for cell proliferation, mineralized calcium deposition and new bone formation, demonstrating the utility of these biologically compatible cements for bone tissue engineering.
Bioinspired strontium magnesium phosphate cements for bone tissue engineering were prepared using a new, facile, environmentally friendly and high yielding (98.5%) precursor method. The bioinspired SMPCs have uniform particle distributions, excellent mechanical strengths and high biocompatibilities. The in vitro responses of bone marrow stromal cells to the SMPCs, including viability, osteogenic differentiation and alkaline phosphatase activity, were evaluated. The results show that the SMPC containing 0.5 mol of strontium (referred to as SMPC-2) has a higher degradation rate and biological activity than magnesium phosphate cements and the other SMPCs. In addition, the synergistic effect of strontium and magnesium ion release from SMPC-2 creates a conducive environment for cell proliferation, mineralized calcium deposition and new bone formation. These observations demonstrate the feasibility of using the new precursor method to generate SMPCs and the utility of these biologically compatible and highly effective cements for bone tissue engineering.

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