4.7 Article

Biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds fabricated by direct write assembly: Mechanical, anti-microbial and osteoblastic properties

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 359-368

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2016.08.018

关键词

Robocasting; Biphasic calcium phosphate; Bone scaffolds; Mechanical properties

资金

  1. JECS Trust [201479]
  2. projects of CICECO-Aveiro Institute of Materials [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007679]
  3. Institute for Biomedicine, University of Aveiro [UID/BIM/04501/2013]
  4. national funds through the FCT/MEC, Portugal
  5. European Union Seventh Framework Program [604036]
  6. Gobierno de Extremadura
  7. FEDER [IB13007]
  8. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal [SFRH/BD/78355/2011]
  9. projects of CICECO-Aveiro Institute of Materials (FCT) [UID/CTM/50011/2013]
  10. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/78355/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present work reports on the fabrication of 3-D porous calcium phosphate scaffolds by robocasting from biphasic (HA/beta-TCP approximate to 1.5) powders, undoped and co-doped with Sr and Ag. Scaffolds with different pore sizes and rod diameter of 410 mu m were fabricated and sintered at 1100 degrees C. The size and morphology of the powder particles, and the concentrations of the processing additives, were shown to play major roles in the robocasting process. For all pore sizes tested, the compressive strength of scaffolds was comparable to or even higher than that of cancellous bone, and mechanical data could be systematically correlated with the porosity fraction. Co-doping the starting powders with Sr and Ag enhanced the mechanical strength of scaffolds, conferred good antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, and did not induce any cytotoxic effects on human MG-63 cells. Furthermore, the co-doped powder was more effective in inducing pre-osteoblastic proliferation. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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