4.2 Article

Behavioural responses of bone-like cells on dense and porous dicalcium phosphate dihydrate-coated & beta;-tricalcium phosphate granules

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s41779-023-00925-4

关键词

Ceramic coating; Bone remodelling; Calcium phosphate; Bioceramic; Tricalcium phosphate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study investigated the behavior of bone-like cells towards dense and porous dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (DCPD)-coated & beta;-tricalcium phosphate (& beta;-TCP) granules. The results demonstrated that the DCPD-coated porous & beta;-TCP granules contributed to the release of calcium ions and decreased pH values. Furthermore, these granules showed good initial cell attachment and enhanced cell viability for up to three days. These findings provide new insights into the impact of pore presence on accelerating cell responses to DCPD-coated & beta;-TCP granules for bioceramic researchers.
The present study investigated the behavioural response of bone-like cells towards dense and porous dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (DCPD)-coated & beta;-tricalcium phosphate (& beta;-TCP) granules. The surfaces of the dense and porous & beta;-TCP granules were coated with a layer of DCPD through the dissolution-precipitation process by exposing them to an acidic calcium phosphate solution for 30 min at 25 & DEG;C. Subsequently, the specimens were characterised with X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscope (SEM), dissolution and pH tests, and evaluation of initial cell attachment. The results demonstrated that the porous & beta;-TCP granule surfaces coated with a DCPD layer contributed to the high concentration of calcium ions released and decreased pH values. Furthermore, the DCPD-coated porous & beta;-TCP granules produced good initial cell attachment and enhanced cell viability for up to three days. The results would provide new insights to bioceramic researchers regarding the impacts of pore presence in accelerating DCPD-coated & beta;-TCP granule cell responses.

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

4.2
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