Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Oral diseases, including tooth loss and bone resorption, often result in the damage or loss of alveolar bone and surrounding tissues. In such cases, there is a high demand for bone graft materials to facilitate oral reconstruction and repair. Bioactive glass (BG) is a well-established bone repair material, having been used in clinical bone reconstruction for over 50 years, demonstrating favorable biosafety and osseointegration. However, to support broader product development and clinical translation, there is still a need to enhance its biodegradation rate and osteogenic capabilities. Methods Herein, we report a nanoscale Si-Ca-W based BG (SiCaW-NPs) with a radial mesoporous structure, which could overcome the shortcoming of commercial BG in biodegradation and osteogenic bioactivity. The SiCaW-NPs could be fabricated facilely by the ultrasonic assisted template method. The morphology and size of the nanomaterials were analyzed using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The crystalline phase structure of the nanomaterials was analyzed using X-ray diffraction (XRD) techniques. The chemical element composition was evaluated using energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). The osteogenic differentiation effect was evaluated in adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells by the alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, genes expression. Results The synthesized SiCaW-NPs showed a porous nanostructure with a mean diameter of 200 nm, a coexisting glass-crystalline phase structure. The SiCaW-NPs with 2% W possessed an optimized osteogenic differentiation ability on ADSCs, including significantly enhanced ALP activity, improved gene and proteins expressions of Runx 2 and BSP. As compared to the BG nanoparticles with the similar chemical structure to commercial BG powder, SiCaW-NPs showed the significantly enhanced osteogenic differentiation ability. These findings suggest that SiCaW-NPs hold promise as a candidate for bone graft applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: