In vitro assessment compares bioactive properties of metal-doped silicate glasses, suggesting optimized tissue repair applications.
Silicate bioactive glass nanoparticles (SBGNs) are promising for tissue repair, but multi-metals doped systems often suffer from compositional complexity, undefined ion-function relationships, and insufficient mechanistic validation. Herein, we established a compositionally simplified binary platform and synthesized four single-ion doped SBGNs (MBGNs: BCa, BCo, BSr, BCe) incorporating representative alkaline-earth, transition, and rare-earth elements. Their tissue repair-relevant bioactivities were systematically compared under unified synthesis and evaluation conditions. All MBGNs exhibited good cytocompatibility but displayed distinct, element-dependent bioactivity profiles. BCa enhanced baseline bioactivity by promoting apatite nucleation in simulated body fluid. BSr showed the strongest anti-inflammatory activity, reducing Il6 and Il1β expression by over 50% and facilitating M2-like macrophage polarization. BCe showed pronounced antioxidant activity, degrading 81.6% of H2O2 and eliminating 90% of intracellular ROS via CeO2-mediated redox cycling. BCo potently promoted angiogenesis, upregulating VEGF and CD31 expression by up to 2.3- and 1.8-fold, and enhancing cell migration and tubular formation. In acute and bacterial infected full-thickness wound models, BSr and BCe accelerated wound closure by 20-40% versus undoped BSi and 3M dressings and more effectively restored vasculature and hair follicles, with BSr exhibiting the greatest healing efficacy. Dose-optimized BCo enhanced hair-follicle regeneration by 123% but was limited by a narrow biosafety window, whereas BCa reduced epidermal thickness by 38% while otherwise resembling BSi. Overall, these data delineate a clear hierarchy of tissue-repair efficacy (BSr > BCe > BCo > BCa ≈ BSi) and show that compositional simplification enables ion-guided design and functional tuning of SBGNs, providing a concise framework for developing simpler yet more potent biomaterials for tissue repair.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: