4.8 Article

Membrane of hybrid chitosan-silica xerogel for guided bone regeneration

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 743-750

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.10.025

关键词

Silica xerogel; Chitosan; Hybrids; Guided bone regeneration; In vivo bone formation

资金

  1. Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Republic of Korea
  2. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [K0004129] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [과C6A2003, 전06A1112] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chitosan-silica xerogel hybrid membranes were fabricated using a sol-gel process and their potential applications in guided bone regeneration (GBR) were investigated in terms of their in vitro cellular activity and in vivo bone regeneration ability. TEM observation revealed that the silica xerogel was dispersed in the chitosan matrix on the nanoscale. The hybrid membrane showed superior mechanical properties to chitosan in the wet state and the rapid induction of calcium phosphate minerals in simulated body fluid, reflecting its excellent in vitro bone bioactivity. Osteoblastic cells were observed to adhere well and grow actively on the hybrid membrane to a level higher than that observed on the chitosan membrane. The alkaline phosphatase activity of the cells was also much higher on the hybrid than on the chitosan membrane. The in vivo study in a rat calvarial model demonstrated significantly enhanced bone regeneration using the hybrid membrane compared to that observed using the pure chitosan one. Histomorphometric analysis performed 3 weeks after implantation revealed a fully closed defect in the hybrid membrane, whereas there was only 57% defect closure in the chitosan membrane. (C) 2008 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

4.8
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