4.6 Article

Apatite formation on bioactive calcium-silicate cements for dentistry affects surface topography and human marrow stromal cells proliferation

期刊

DENTAL MATERIALS
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 974-992

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.06.002

关键词

Root-end filling materials; Calcium-silicate cement; MTA; Alpha-TCP; Apatite spherulites

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of ageing in phosphate-containing solution of bioactive calcium-silicate cements on the chemistry, morphology and topography of the surface, as well as on in vitro human marrow stromal cells viability and proliferation was investigated. A calcium-silicate cement (wTC) mainly based on dicalcium-silicate and tricalcium-silicate was prepared. Alpha-TCP was added to wTC to obtain wTC-TCP. Bismuth oxide was inserted in wTC to prepare a radiopaque cement (wTC-Bi). A commercial calcium-silicate cement (ProRoot MTA) was tested as control. Cement disks were aged in DPBS for 5h (fresh samples), 14 and 28 days, and analyzed by ESEM/EDX, SEM/EDX, ATR-FTIR, micro-Raman techniques and scanning white-light interferometry. Proliferation, LDH release, ALP activity and collagen production of human marrow stromal cells (MSC) seeded for 128 days on the cements were evaluated. Fresh samples exposed a surface mainly composed of calcium-silicate hydrates CSH (from the hydration of belite and alite), calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate, and ettringite. Apatite nano-spherulites rapidly precipitated on cement surfaces within 5h. On wTC-TCP the Ca-P deposits appeared thicker than on the other cements. Aged cements showed an irregular porous calcium-phosphate (Ca-P) coating, formed by aggregated apatite spherulites with interspersed calcite crystals. All the experimental cements exerted no acute toxicity in the cell assay system and allowed cell growth. Using biochemical results, the scores were: fresh cements>aged cements for cell proliferation and ALP activity (except for wTC-Bi), whereas fresh cements

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

4.6
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