Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Currently, bio-mimetic material synthetic processes are involved in bone implant design which is closely related to natural bone. In this work, Zinc, Cerium and Selenium substituted hydroxyapatite/ Poly (sorbitol sebacate glutamate) (Zn, Ce, Se-HAP/PSSG, M-HAP/PSSG) composite was prepared by sol-gel method as a bio-mimetic materials for bone implantation. The physiochemical characterizations of M-HAP/PSSG was analyzed by Fourier transform infra red (FT-IR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) equipped with energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) and High resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM). Then, the prepared M-HAP/PSSG composite was compared with HAP/PSSG, Zn-HAP/PSSG, Ce-HAP/PSSG and Se-HAP/PSSG composites in order to evaluate the influence of single minerals on HAP matrix. Then the coating ability of the final better M-HAP/PSSG composite on surface treated titanium (Ti) was investigated to evaluate the perfection of implant material. The higher micro-hardness was observed on M-HAP/PSSG composite coated Ti (305.92 ± 20.42) due to the presence of multi-minerals as well as the co-polymer PSSG when compared with M-HAP coated Ti plate (273.0 ± 15.75). The bio-compatibility and osteogenic activity evaluation of all prepared composite on human osteoblasts MG-63 cells shows that the better cell attachment, proliferation and differentiation was observed by M-HAP/PSSG bio-composites when compared with other composites. Histological staining and X-ray photographs of in-vivo rat model confirms that the formation of new tibial bone when the defected rat was treated with M-HAP/PSSG composite coated Ti implant. In conclusion, the bio-composite M-HAP/PSSG is better scaffold for coating on the surface of Ti implant for orthopedic implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: