Objectives Infection-driven failure remains a major challenge in regenerative endodontics, underscoring the need for advanced biomaterials that can simultaneously promote dentin regeneration and provide sustained antimicrobial activity. This study developed a surfactant- and template-free sol-gel strategy, combined with controlled calcium precursor addition and freeze-drying, to synthesize copper-containing mesoporous bioactive glass nanoparticles (Cu-nBG) with regenerative and antibacterial properties. Methods Spherical nBG (60–100 nm) were synthesized using a modified template-free Stöber process, followed by copper incorporation (0.5–1.5% w/v). The effects of calcium precursor addition timing on particle morphology were evaluated. Physicochemical properties and ion release were characterized by HR-SEM, TEM, BET, FTIR, XRD, XPS, and ICP-OES. Apatite-forming ability was assessed by hydroxyapatite formation following immersion in simulated body fluid. Antibacterial activity against Enterococcus faecalis and Streptococcus mutans , and cytocompatibility using NIH/3T3 fibroblasts, were assessed. Results Optimized precursor addition yielded predominantly spherical nanoparticles (60–100 nm). Copper incorporation preserved the amorphous structure while reducing specific surface area and pore volume. Cu-nBG exhibited sustained concentration-dependent Cu²⁺ release over 28 days without burst release. All formulations supported hydroxyapatite formation following immersion in SBF from day 7, demonstrating preserved apatite-forming ability. Copper incorporation conferred concentration-dependent antibacterial activity, with 1.5% Cu-nBG showing the most sustained inhibition of E. faecalis and S. mutans . All formulations exhibited cytocompatibility at 1–5 mg·mL −1 . Significance The surfactant-free, freeze-drying–assisted sol–gel strategy enables controlled synthesis of Cu-nBG with sustained Cu 2+ release, apatite-forming ability, antibacterial activity, and cytocompatibility, supporting further investigation as functional additives in future endodontic biomaterials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rowlo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: