4.8 Article

The incorporation of strontium and zinc into a calcium-silicon ceramic for bone tissue engineering

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 3175-3184

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.024

关键词

Strontium; Zinc; CaSiO(3); Scaffolds; Bone regeneration; Orthopaedic

资金

  1. Australia National Health and Medical Research Council
  2. Australian Orthopaedic Research Association, Rebecca Cooper Foundation
  3. Australian Research Council
  4. University of Sydney Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study we developed novel scaffolds through the controlled substitution and incorporation of strontium and zinc into a calcium-silicon system to form Sr-Hardystonite (Sr-Ca(2)ZnSi(2)O(7), Sr-HT). The physical and biological properties of Sr-HT were compared to Hardystonite (Ca(2)ZnSi(2)O(7)) [HT]. We showed that Sr-HT scaffolds are porous with interconnected porous network (interconnectivity: 99%) and large pore size (300-500 mu m) and an overall porosity of 78%, combined with a relatively high compressive strength (2.16 +/- 0.52 MPa). These properties are essential for enhancing bone ingrowth in load-bearing applications. Sr-HT ceramic scaffolds induced the attachment and differentiation of human bone derived cells (HOB), compared to that for the HT scaffolds. Sr-HT scaffolds enhanced expression of alkaline phosphatase, Runx-2, osteopontin, osteocalcin and bone sialoprotein. The in vivo osteoconductivity of the scaffolds was assessed at 3 and 6 weeks following implantation in tibial bone defects in rats. Histological staining revealed rapid new growth of bone into the pores of the 3D scaffolds with the Sr-HT and HT, relative to the beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP). In vivo, HT and Sr-HT produced distinct differences in the patterns of degradation of the materials, and their association with TRAP positive osteoclast-like cells with HT appearing more resistant compared to both Sr-HT and beta-TCP. (C) 2010 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