|
 |
| REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2013 | Volume
: 4
| Issue : 2 | Page : 78-83 |
|
|
Bioglass: A novel biocompatible innovation
Vidya Krishnan1, T Lakshmi2
1 Professor and Head of the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, SRM Kattankulathur Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India
2 Department of Pharmacology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India
| Date of Web Publication | 8-May-2013 |
Correspondence Address:
Vidya Krishnan
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, SRM Kattankulathur Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2231-4040.111523
 Abstract | | |
Advancement of materials technology has been immense, especially in the past 30 years. Ceramics has not been new to dentistry. Porcelain crowns, silica fillers in composite resins, and glass ionomer cements have already been proved to be successful. Materials used in the replacement of tissues have come a long way from being inert, to compatible, and now regenerative. When hydroxyapatite was believed to be the best biocompatible replacement material, Larry Hench developed a material using silica (glass) as the host material, incorporated with calcium and phosphorous to fuse broken bones. This material mimics bone material and stimulates the regrowth of new bone material. Thus, due to its biocompatibility and osteogenic capacity it came to be known as "bioactive glass-bioglass." It is now encompassed, along with synthetic hydroxyapatite, in the field of biomaterials science known as "bioactive ceramics." The aim of this article is to give a bird's-eye view, of the various uses in dentistry, of this novel, miracle material which can bond, induce osteogenesis, and also regenerate bone. Keywords: Biocompatible, bioinert, bioregenerative, hydroxyapatite, osteogenic
How to cite this article:
Krishnan V, Lakshmi T. Bioglass: A novel biocompatible innovation. J Adv Pharm Technol Res 2013;4:78-83 |
| Introduction | |  |
A glimpse through the history of development of materials used in dentistry, specifically replacement materials, shows that the aim has been to create materials that were as chemically inert as possible. In mid 60s, the biocompatibility and long-term survival of the material was achieved by minimizing the material-host interaction. As the materials used at that time were mostly metallic, this led to corrosion and eventual failure caused by the aggressive nature of body fluids. This led to the search of materials that could withstand the chemical attack of the body.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the search for better biocompatibility of implant materials resulted in the new concept of bioceramic materials that would mimic natural bone tissue. Hydroxyapatite, a naturally occurring ceramic mineral, was also the mineral component of bone. Thus, only synthetic hydroxyapatite was believed to be entirely compatible with the body.
During this period, Professor Hench came up with a new biocompatible material using silica (glass) as a base material that could be mixed with other ingredients such as calcium to unite fractured bones. This mimics normal bone and stimulates the regrowth of new bone between the fractures. [1],[2] By using this material, the trend of implant materials was shifted to stimulate body's own regenerative capabilities. This new glass material on dissolving, in normal physiological environment, activates genes controlling osteogenesis and growth factor production [2],[3],[4] (within 48 hours) with bone produced of equivalent quality to natural bone. [3],[5] The trabecular bone growth and quantity were much more than produced by synthetic hydroxyapatite. [6],[7] After implantation of this material in bone tissue, these glass materials resisted removal from the implant site -- which was coined as "bonded to bone" by Hench. [8],[9] Hench used the term "bioactive glass" to describe this attachment. [1],[10],[11] A bioactive material is defined as a material that elicits a specific biological response at the interface of the material, which results in the formation of a bond between the tissue and that material. [12],[13] The term bioactive was later applied to encompass the entire field of biomaterials science known as bioactive ceramics. [14] The gene activation, bone regenerative capability with better quality and quantity of bone equivalent to normal bone, and high level of bioactivity are unique only to bioglass when compared with synthetic hydroxyapatite and any other allograft, which more than justifies the use of bioglass.
The other advantages of bioglass over synthetic hydroxyapatite are the biological fixation, and the capability of bonding to both hard and soft tissues, whereas hydroxyapatite binds only to hard tissues and also needs an exogenous covering to hold the implants in place. [15]
Composition and Mechanism of Activity
The original bioglass (45S5) composition is as follows: 45% silica (SiO 2 ), 24.5% calcium oxide (CaO), 24.5%sodium oxide (Na 2 O), and 6% phosphorous pentoxide (P 2 O 5 ) in weight percentage. Bioglass material is composed of minerals that occur naturally in the body (SiO 2 , Ca, Na 2 O, H, and P), and the molecular proportions of the calcium and phosphorous oxides are similar to those in the bones. The surface of a bioglass implant, when subjected to an aqueous solution, or body fluids, converts to a silica-CaO/P 2 O 5 -rich gel layer that subsequently mineralizes into hydroxycarbonate in a matter of hours. [16],[17],[18] More the dissolution, better the bone tissue growth. [7] This gel layer resembles hydroxyapatite matrix so much that osteoblasts were differentiated and new bone was deposited. [14]
Ca 5 (PO 4 ) 3 (OH) is the chemical formula for hydroxyapatite, a natural mineral form of calcium apatite and usually written as Ca 10 (PO) 6 (OH) 2 .
The bioactivity level of any material is measured by bioactivity Index (I B ). Bioactivity Index of a material is the time taken for more than half of the interface to bond, i.e., t 0.5bb .
I B = 100/t 0.5bb
Any material with the value of I B greater than 8, like 45S5, will bond to both soft and hard tissues. Materials such as synthetic hydroxyapatite with I B value < 8 but > 0 will bind only to hard tissue. [19] The typical composition of the bioglass and bioceramics is indicated in [Table 1]. [20],[21]
When the proportions of these minerals are altered, the properties of the bioglass change, which can be suited to be used in various body parts accordingly.
As depicted in the triangle [Figure 1], varying proportions of the components cause the bioglass to be bioinert, bioresorbable, or bioregenerative. [22]
Bioglass is available in multiple forms: Particulate, pellets, powder, mesh, and cones. Interestingly it can be moulded into any desired form [Figure 2].
| Bioglass as Graft Material | | |
Materials chosen for grafting need to be biocompatible, bioresorbable, and osteogenic. Treatment for the elimination of osseous defects due to periodontal diseases, pathologies, and surgeries include autogenous bone grafts, alloplast, guided tissue regeneration, combination of guided tissue regeneration and decalcified freeze dried bone.
Limitations of autogenous bone grafts are additional surgical trauma and not enough tissue material to fill the defect. To overcome these restrictions, alloplastic materials were used. But again adverse immune response and disease transmission have restricted its widespread acceptance. The membrane exposure and the local infection that follows in guided tissue regeneration obstruct bone formation.
The last three decades saw the trials of many glass and glass-ceramic compositions. The glass-silicate composition developed by Hench showed bonding to bone. The bioactive glass has been observed to bond with certain connective tissue through collagen formation with the glass surface. [22] Bioactive glass with its interconnected porosity has added advantages in hard-tissue prosthesis. The porous structure supports tissue in/on growth and improves implant stability by biologic fixation. But its low fracture resistance makes it more useful in load-free areas.
Trials have been conducted to compare repair response of bioactive glass synthetic bone graft particles and open debridement in treatment of human periodontal osseous defects. Fifty-nine defects in 16 healthy adults were chosen. Clinical parameters of probing depths, clinical attachment levels, and gingival recession were recorded. Radiographs and soft tissue presurgical measurements were repeated at 6, 9, and 12 months. There was significantly less gingival recession in bioactive sites compared with control sites. More defect fill in bioactive glass sites. Bioactive glass sites showed significant improvement in clinical parameters compared with open flap debridement. [23]
Bioglass was used in particle form to fill periodontal osseous defects. [22],[23],[24],[25] Bone was seen to be surrounding individual particles from many sites. [26] Twenty patients age 23--55 years (44 sites) with intrabony defects completed the 1-year study. Follow-up was carried out weekly, at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 1 year post surgery. Results showed a significant increase in radiographic density and volume between the defects treated with bioactive glass when compared with those treated with surgical debridement only. Thus, bioactive glass was found to be effective in the treatment of intrabony defects. [27]
Another study [28] was conducted with bioglass particulates in periodontal osseous defects of 12 patients. Data was collected initially and at 3, 6, 24 months post-treatment intervals. Considerable improvements of all clinical parameters of mean probing depth reduction, mean attachment gain, and mean radiographic bone fill were noted. Follow-up of over 24 months showed stable results. The material elicited extraordinary tissue response and hassle-free handling.
| Bioglass as Endosseous Implant | | |
After dental extraction, resorption of alveolar bone affects majority of patients. [29],[30],[31] This resorption leads to ill-fitting dentures resulting in compromised masticatory efficiency, oral and systemic health problems, and esthetics. Alveolar bone height is maintained on stimulation by the periodontal membrane and teeth or roots being present. [32],[33] After extraction, stimulation is lost to the alveolar bone and the pressure from dentures cause bone resorption. [34],[35] The resorption rate varies with from individual to individual and at varying levels in the same individual. [32],[33],[36]
Many treatment modalities have been suggested for augmentation of the atrophic ridge. [37] Although autogenous bone grafting can be a recommended treatment modality and also with reduced antigenicity of freeze dried bone rejection, infections and transmission of disease limit its usage.
Ankylosis, resorption, and pocket formation make replantation of natural roots a failure. Thus, maintaining the residual alveolar ridge is better than trying to augment it. While many materials such as carbon, calcium phosphate ceramics, tricalcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite, coraline hydroxyapatite, and bioglass have been used in augmentation of alveolar ridge, dehiscence of these materials, mostly within 12 months, made implantation difficult.
Considering these obstacles, bioglass was the most promising implant material, as proved by the study carried out by Stanley et al., using cone-shaped bioglass [38],[39] The study was done on baboons for 2 years. Bioglass implants were placed in the extracted sockets of incisors, splinted to adjacent natural teeth for 3 months and then desplinted for another 3 months. Bioglass caused ankylosis, usually by direct deposition of bone on the implant surface, [40] with the added advantage of gradation of mineralization within the bioglass gel layer reducing from outward to inward providing mechanical compliance like the periodontal membrane in the natural tooth.
Another study [30],[41],[42] had 242 cone implants placed in 29 patients. The patients were observed from 12 to 32 months. The implants were found to be surrounded with new bone on postoperative evaluation of surgical exposure. Dehiscence was not encountered even at 12 months, compared with dehiscence at 10 months with other materials. Infectionless normal tissue healing with new bone formation as sighted in radiographs made bioglass a highly biocompatible innovation.
| Bioglass as Remineralizing Agent | | |
Around 35% of patients complain of dentinal hypersensitivity. Initial treatment was by calcium phosphate precipitation method using dentin etching. The characteristic osteogenic activity of bioactive and biocompatible glass made it worth its trial in occluding dentinal tubules. A new dentifrice formulation [43] containing a modified bioglass material, replacing a part of the abrasive silica component, was compared with original 45S6 bioactive glass. The results evidenced that original bioglass dislodged easily when compared with modified bioglass, proving that bioglass, when used with a suitable vehicle, can be an excellent treatment for dentine sensitivity.
A second study [44] compared mineralization of bioactive glass S53P4 with regular commercial glass. The bioactive glass released more silica than commercial glass along with lesser decalcification during the process when pretreated with bioactive glass. Thus, bioactive glass S53P4 is more efficient in treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity.
In support to the above study, Salonen et al., [45] proved that S53P4 induced tissue mineralization at the glass-tissue interface and elsewhere. The study widened the use of bioglass in treatment of caries prophylaxis, in dentinal hypersensitivity, as root apex sealer, and as metal implant coating.
Among the uses of bioactive glass, the efficacy of sol-gel bioglass particles, and melt-driven bioglass particles were tested and compared. [46] Dentine treated with melt-driven bioglass showed an apatite layer, which was continuous, adherent, and with particle formation. Bioerodible gel films have also been proved to be useful in the delivery of remineralizing agents. [47]
| Bioglass as Antibacterial Agent | | |
The reactions of bioglass in aqueous environment, leading to osseointegration prompted scientists to check its antibacterial activity. [48] Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus mutans, and Actinomyces viscosus were suspended in nutrient broth and artificial saliva or Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium plus 10% fetal calf serum with or without particulate bioglass. There was considerable reduction in the viability of all bacteria tested, in both media, when compared with inert glass controls. In conclusion, the antibacterial effect of bioglass was attributed to its alkaline nature. [49]
| Bioglass in Drug Delivery | | |
The basic criteria for selection of any drug delivery system should be that it is inert; biologically compatible; has good mechanical strength; is good from the aspect of patient comfort; has the ability to carry high doses of the drug, with no risk of accidental release; and is in easy administering, removal, fabrication, and sterilization. There are three basic mechanisms through which active agents can be delivered: By diffusion, activation of solvent or swelling, and degradation.
Controlled drug delivery means preplanned delivery of a drug. The aim was to be more effective without possibilities of increased or decreased dosages, and also greater patient acceptance, maximal usage of the drug, with least administrations.
The importance is moresoeverwhen this accuracy is limited while using conventional drugs or injections. For example, when water soluble drugs should be slowly released, low soluble drugs should be released fast, specific-site delivery, nanoparticulate drug delivery systems, and where carriers should be quickly removed. Studies have proved that bioglass in such casescan be a successful carrier in drug delivery.
A study used Fick's diffusion law to treat osteomyelitis with teicoplanin. [50] Teicoplanin was the liquid and borate bioactive glass the solid carrier along with chitosan, citric acid, and glucose. The results of the study showed bioactivity of hydroxyapatite forming from the bioglass when the drug was being released. This system cured the osteomyelitis in tibial bone of rabbits in vivo, and also promoted formation of the tibial bone.
Bioglass has been tried as a vehicle for drug delivery. Vancomycin on bioglass carrier has been tested for treating osteomyelitis with success. [51]
Indomethacin was tried with self-setting bioactive cement based on CaO-SiO 2 -P 2 O 5 glass. This mixture hardened and formed hydroxyapatite in about 5 minutes with volume shrinkage of 5% in simulated body fluid. [52]
The fast-acting anti-inflammatory drug ibuprofen was released in the first 8 hours when immersed in simulated body fluid. [53],[54]
| Bioglass in Bone Tissue Engineering | | |
One of the biggest hurdles in tissue engineering was to mimic the extracellular matrix. Scaffolds built using biocomposite nanofibers and nanohydroxyapatite were naturally very porous, which in turn facilitated good cell occupancy, vascularity, movement of nutrients, and metabolic waste products. Studies comparing bioinert with bioactive glass ceramic templates, produced increased osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. This system helped the human fetal osteoblasts to adhere, migrate, proliferate, and mineralize into bone, which was a tremendous step ahead in the bone defect filling. [3],[55]
| Conclusion | | |
On critical analysis, Young's modulus of bioglass being between 30 and 50 GPa, nearly that of natural bone, is a great advantage. [20] Maybe a small disadvantage is the low mechanical strength and decreased fracture resistance. This can be easily overcome by altering the composition, using it in low load-bearing areas, and using it for the bioactive stage. Very clearly, the disadvantages of bioglass are minimal compared with its versatile strength and huge foray of uses.
The replacement of tissues demands very high importance in this technological era. As highlighted in the present article, bioglass is a versatile replacement material, as it is available in multiple forms and also can be moulded into desired forms as per the need of the user. Thus, its scope for use also increases manifold. After two decades of being in use, the most telling is that bioglass has not reported any adverse responses when used in the body. As the use of these compositions increases, in varying clinical fields, it will bring into sight, better applications in repair as well as regeneration of natural tissues.
| References | | |
| 1. | Hench LL, West JK. Biological applications of bioactive glasses. Life Chem Reports 1996;13:187-241. 
|
| 2. | Hench LL, Xynos ID, Buttery LD, Polak JM. Bioactive materials to control cell cycle. Mater Res Innovations 2000;3:313-23.
|
| 3. | Xynos ID, Hukkanen MV, Batten JJ, Buttery LD, Hench LL, Polak JM. Bioglass 45S5® stimulates osteoblast turnover and enhances bone formation in vitro: Implications and applications for bone tissue engineering. Calcif Tissue Int 2000;67:321-9.
|
| 4. | Xynos ID, Edgar AJ, Buttery LD, Hench LL, Polak JM. Ionic products of bioactive glass dissolution increase proliferation of human osteoblasts and induce insulin-like growth factor II mRNA expression and protein synthesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2000;276:461-5.
|
| 5. | Details of the clinical cases are available from US Biomaterials Inc., Alachua, FL, USA, 32615.
|
| 6. | Hench LL, Jones JR, Sepulveda P. Bioactive materials for tissue engineering scaffolds. Chapter 1. In: Future Strategies for Tissue and Organ Replacement. Imperial College Press.
|
| 7. | Ducheyne P, Qui Q. Bioactive ceramics: The effect of surface reactivity on bone formation and bone cell function. Biomaterials 1999;20:2287-303.
|
| 8. | LL Hench, Splinter RJ, Allen WC, Greenlee TK. Bonding mechanisms at the interface of ceramic prosthetic materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1972;2:117-41.
|
| 9. | Hench LL, Paschall HA. Histochemical responses at a materials interface. J Biomed Mater Res 1974;5:49-54.
|
| 10. | Hench LL, Wilson J. Introduction to Bioceramics. Singapore: World Scientific; 1993.
|
| 11. | Cao W, Hench LL. Bioactive materials. Ceram Int 1996;22:493-507.
|
| 12. | Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemmons JE, editors. An Introduction to Materials in Medicine. Biomaterials Science; 1996. p. 484.
|
| 13. | Hench LL. Biomaterials: A forecast for the future. Biomaterials 1998;19:1419-23.
|
| 14. | Developments in Biocompatible Glass Compositions. Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry Magazine MDDI Article Index. An MD and DI, Column Special Section, 1999 Mar.
|
| 15. | Padrines M, Rohanizadeh R, Damiens C, Heymann D, Fortun Y. Inhibition of apatite formation by vitronectin. Connect Tissue Res 2000;41:101-8.
|
| 16. | Andersson OH, Karlsson KH, Kangasniemi K. Calcium phosphate formation at the surface of bioactive glasses in vivo. J Non-Cryst Solids 1990;119:290-6.
|
| 17. | Hench LL, Wilson J. Surface-active biomaterials. Science 1984;226:630-6.
|
| 18. | Wallace KE, Hill RG, Pembroke JT, Brown CJ, Hatton PV. Influence of sodium oxide content on bioactive glass properties. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1999;10:697-701.
|
| 19. | Hench LL. Bioceramics: From concept to clinic. J Am Ceram Soc 1991;74:1487-510.
|
| 20. | Donglu Shi. Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg- Germany; 2004. p. 27.
|
| 21. | Bronzino JD. Biomedical Engineering Handbook. vol. 1. Springer, Heidelberg- Germany; 2000.
|
| 22. | Elsberg LL, Lobel KD, Hench LL. Geometric effects on the reaction stages of bioactive glasses. (Unpublished).
|
| 23. | Froum SJ, Weinberg MA, Tarnow D. Comparison of bioactive glass synthetic bone graft particles and open debridement in the treatment of human periodontal defects. A clinical study. J Periodontol 1998;69:698-709.
|
| 24. | Wilson J, Low SB. Bioactive ceramics for periodontal treatment: Comparative studies in the Patus monkey. J Appl Biomater 1992;3:123-9.
|
| 25. | Wilson J, Low S, Fetner A, Hench LL. Bioactive materials for periodontal treatment: A comparative study. In: Pizzoferrato A, Marchetti PG, Ravaglioli A, Lee AJ, editors. Biomaterials and Clinical Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1987. p. 223-8.
|
| 26. | Oonishi H, Hench LL, Wilson J, Sugihara F, Tsuji E, Kushitani S, et al. Comparative bone growth behaviour in granules of bioceramic materials of various sizes. J Biomed Mater Res 1999;44:31-43.
|
| 27. | Zamet JS, Darbar UR, Griffiths GS, Bulman JS, Brägger U, Bürgin W, et al. Particulate bioglass as a grafting material in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:410-8.
|
| 28. | Low SB, King CJ, Krieger J. An evaluation of bioactive ceramic in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1997;17:358-67.
|
| 29. | Krish ER, Garg AK. Post-extraction ridge maintenance using the endosseous ridge maintenance implant (ERMI).Compendium 1994;15:234-42.
|
| 30. | Stanley HR, Hall MB, Colaizzi F, Clark AE. Residual alveolar ridge maintenance with a new endosseous implant material. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:607-13.
|
| 31. | Wilson J, Clark AE, Hall M, Hench LL. Tissue response to Bioglass endosseous ridge maintenance implants. J Oral Implantol 1993;19:295-302.
|
| 32. | Atwood DA. Some clinical factors related to rate of resorption of residual ridges. 1962. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:119-25.
|
| 33. | Veldhuis H, Driessen T, Denissen H, de Groot K. A 5-year evaluation of apatite tooth roots as means to reduce residual ridge resorption. Clin Prev Dent 1984;6:5-8.
|
| 34. | Quinn JH, Kent JN. Alveolar ridge maintenance with solid nonporous hydroxylapatite root implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984;85:511-21.
|
| 35. | Hench LL, Ethridge EC. Biomaterials: An interfacial approach. New York: Academic Press; 1982.
|
| 36. | Sobolik DF. Alveolar bone resorption. J Prosthet Dent 1980;10:612-9.
|
| 37. | Piecuch JF, Topazian RG, Skoly S, Wolfe S. Experimental ridge augmentation with porous hydroxyapatite implants. J Dent Res 1983;62:148-54.
|
| 38. | Hall MB, Stanley HR. Early clinical trials of 45S5 Bioglass for endosseous alveolar ridge maintenence implants. Excerpta Medica Proceedings International Congress on Tissue Integration and Maxillofacial Reconstruction, Brussels, 1985. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers BV; 1985. p. 248-52.
|
| 39. | Clark AE, Stanley HR. Clinical trials of bioglass implants for alveolar ridge maintenance. J Dent Res 1986;65:304.
|
| 40. | Stanley HR, Hench LL, Bennett CG Jr, Chellemi SJ, King CJ 3 rd , Going RE, et al. The implantation of natural tooth form bioglass in baboons--long term results. Implantologist 1981;2:26-36.
|
| 41. | Stanley HR, Hall MB. Research protocol and consent form for project entitled: Preservation of alveolar ridge with the intraosseous implantation of root-shaped cones made of bioglass. Gainesville Fla: University of Florida, J.H. Miller Health Center; 1983.
|
| 42. | Weinstein AM, Klawitter JJ, Cook SD. Implant-bone characteristics of bioglass dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res 1980;14:23-9.
|
| 43. | Gillam DG, Tang JY, Mordan NJ, Newman HN. The effects of a novel Bioglass dentrifice on dentine sensitivity: A scanning electron microscopy investigation. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:446.
|
| 44. | Forsback AP, Areva S, Salonen JI. Mineralization of dentin induced by treatment with bioactive glass S53P4 in vitro. Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62:14-20.
|
| 45. | Salonen JI. Bioactive glass in dentistry. J Minimum Intervention Dent 2009;2.
|
| 46. | Curtis AR, West NX, Su B. Synthesis of nanobioglass and formation of apatite rods to occlude exposed dentine tubules and eliminate hypersensitivity. Acta Biomater 2010;6:3740-6.
|
| 47. | Ramashetty Prabhakar A, Arali V. Comparison of the remineralizing effects of sodium fluoride and bioactive glass using bioerodible gel systems. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2009;3:117-21.
|
| 48. | Allan I, Newman H, Wilson M. Antibacterial activity of particulate bioglass against supra and subgingival bacteria. Biomaterials 2001;22:1683-7.
|
| 49. | Zhang D, Leppäranta O, Munukka E. Antibacterial effects and dissolution behaviour of six bioactive glasses. J Control Release 2009;139:118-26.
|
| 50. | Zhang X, Jia WT, Gu YI-fei. Borate bioglass based drug delivery of teicoplanin for treating osteomyelitis. J Inorg Mater 2010;25:293-8.
|
| 51. | Xie Z, Liu X, Jia W, Zhang C, Huang W, Wang J. Treatment of osteomyelitis and repair of bone defect by degradable bioactive glass releasing vancomycin. J Control Release 2009;139:118-26.
|
| 52. | Otsuka M, Matsuda Y, Kokubo T, Yoshihara S, Nakamura T, Yamamuro T. A novel skeletal drug delivery system using self-setting bioactive glass bone cement. III: The in vitro drug release from bone cement containing indomethacin and its physicochemical properties. J Control Release 1994;31:111-9.
|
| 53. | Ladrón de Guevara-Fernández S, Ragel CV, Vallet-Regí M. Bioactive glass-polymer materials for controlled release of ibuprofen. Biomaterials 2003;24:4037-43.
|
| 54. | Méndez JA, Fernández M, González-Corchón A, Salvado M, Collía F, de Pedro JA, et al. Injectable self-curing bioactive acrylic-glass composites charged with specific anti-inflammatory/analgesic agent. Biomaterials 2004;25:2381-92.
|
| 55. | Venugopal J, Vadgma P, Sampath Kumar T, Ramakrishna S. Biocomposite nanofibres and osteoblasts for bone tissue engineering. Nanotechnology 2007;18.
|
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]
[Table 1]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Evaluation of tensile, thermal, and biological properties of natural rubber-based biocomposite with biosilicate and
45S5-K
bioglass
|
|
| Luiz R. M. Lima, Guilherme F. Caetano, Viviane O. Soares, Renivaldo J. Santos, José A. Malmonge, Michael J. Silva, Alexander L. Yarin | | Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 2023; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Amorphous silica fiber matrix biomaterials: An analysis of material synthesis and characterization for tissue engineering |
|
| Hyun S. Kim, Sangamesh G. Kumbar, Syam P. Nukavarapu | | Bioactive Materials. 2023; 19: 155 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Interaction of Ceramic Implant Materials with Immune System |
|
| Guzel Rafikova, Svetlana Piatnitskaia, Elena Shapovalova, Svyatoslav Chugunov, Victor Kireev, Daria Ialiukhova, Azat Bilyalov, Valentin Pavlov, Julia Kzhyshkowska | | International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(4): 4200 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
In Vitro Electrochemical Corrosion Assessment of Magnesium Nanocomposites Reinforced with Samarium(III) Oxide and Silicon Dioxide Nanoparticles |
|
| Moataz Abdalla, Austin Sims, Sherif Mehanny, Meysam Haghshenas, Manoj Gupta, Hamdy Ibrahim | | Journal of Composites Science. 2022; 6(6): 154 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Current Development in Biomaterials—Hydroxyapatite and Bioglass for Applications in Biomedical Field: A Review |
|
| Diana Georgiana Filip, Vasile-Adrian Surdu, Andrei Viorel Paduraru, Ecaterina Andronescu | | Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2022; 13(4): 248 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Impact of aqueous solution pH on network structure of corrosion-induced surface layers of boroaluminosilicate glass |
|
| Huseyin Kaya, Stephane Gin, Bryan D. Vogt, Seong H. Kim | | Journal of the American Ceramic Society. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
Review of Physical, Mechanical, and Biological Characteristics of 3D-Printed Bioceramic Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications |
|
| Mahendran Thangavel, Renold Elsen Selvam | | ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
Study of the toxicity of high-silica porous glasses |
|
| D S Shevchenko, O V Rakhimova, T A Tsyganova | | Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2022; 2315(1): 012004 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
Bioactive glass selectively promotes cytotoxicity towards giant cell tumor of bone derived neoplastic stromal cells and induces MAPK signalling dependent autophagy |
|
| Joerg Fellenberg, Sarina Losch, Burkhard Lehner, Marcela Arango-Ospina, Aldo R. Boccaccini, Fabian Westhauser | | Bioactive Materials. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Cerium conversion coating and sol-gel coating for corrosion protection of the WE43 Mg alloy |
|
| Gualter Silva Pereira, Oscar Mauricio Prada Ramirez, Pedro Renato Tavares Avila, Julian Arnaldo Avila Diaz, Haroldo Cavalcanti Pinto, Marcos Hideki Miyazaki, Hercílio Gomes de Melo, Waldek Wladimir Bose Filho | | Corrosion Science. 2022; : 110527 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Sol-gel bioactive glass containing biomaterials for restorative dentistry: A review |
|
| Hazel O. Simila, Aldo R. Boccaccini | | Dental Materials. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
Comparative investigation on antibacterial, biological and mechanical behaviour of monticellite and diopside derived from biowaste for bone regeneration |
|
| Senthil Kumar Venkatraman, Rajan Choudhary, Genasan Krishnamurithy, Hanumantha Rao Balaji Raghavendran, Malliga Raman Murali, Tunku Kamarul, Anushree Suresh, Jayanthi Abraham, Subhashree Praharaj, Sasikumar Swamiappan | | Materials Chemistry and Physics. 2022; : 126157 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
Functionalized Collagen/Elastin-like Polypeptide Hydrogels for Craniofacial Bone Regeneration |
|
| Pallabi Pal, Michelle A. Tucci, Lir-Wan Fan, Ratna Bollavarapu, Jonathan W. Lee, Susana M. Salazar Marocho, Amol V. Janorkar | | Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2022; : 2202477 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
Resin-modified glass ionomer enriched with BIOGLASS: Ion-release, bioactivity and antibacterial effect |
|
| Fábia Regina Vieira de Oliveira Roma, Tarcisio Jorge Leitão de Oliveira, José Bauer, Leily Macedo Firoozmand | | Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 15 |
Comparative analysis of the effect of Bioactive Glass 45S5 on enamel erosion progression in human dentitions (in vitro study) |
|
| Rehab Samir Salma, Nour Khaled Eldardiry, Haya Ayman Elmaddah, Hoda Ahmed Ismail, Eman M. Salem | | Clinical Oral Investigations. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 16 |
Structure and Properties of Bioactive Glass-Modified Calcium Phosphate/Calcium Sulfate Biphasic Porous Self-Curing Bone Repair Materials and Preliminary Research on Their Osteogenic Effect |
|
| Tao Tan, Danyang Song, Suning Hu, Xiangrui Li, Mei Li, Lei Wang, Hailan Feng | | Materials. 2022; 15(22): 7898 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 17 |
Characterization and In Vitro Biocompatibility of Two New Bioglasses for Application in Dental Medicine—A Preliminary Study |
|
| Andra Clichici, Gabriela Adriana Filip, Marcela Achim, Ioana Baldea, Cecilia Cristea, Gheorghe Melinte, Ovidiu Pana, Lucian Barbu Tudoran, Diana Dudea, Razvan Stefan | | Materials. 2022; 15(24): 9060 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 18 |
The Design of 3D-Printed Polylactic Acid–Bioglass Composite Scaffold: A Potential Implant Material for Bone Tissue Engineering |
|
| Sahar Sultan, Nebu Thomas, Mekha Varghese, Yogesh Dalvi, Shilpa Joy, Stephen Hall, Aji P Mathew | | Molecules. 2022; 27(21): 7214 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
Characterisation of Selected Materials in Medical Applications |
|
| Kacper Kroczek, Pawel Turek, Damian Mazur, Jacek Szczygielski, Damian Filip, Robert Brodowski, Krzysztof Balawender, Lukasz Przeszlowski, Bogumil Lewandowski, Stanislaw Orkisz, Artur Mazur, Grzegorz Budzik, Józef Cebulski, Mariusz Oleksy | | Polymers. 2022; 14(8): 1526 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
Can 3D-Printed Bioactive Glasses Be the Future of Bone Tissue Engineering? |
|
| Amey Dukle, Dhanashree Murugan, Arputharaj Joseph Nathanael, Loganathan Rangasamy, Tae-Hwan Oh | | Polymers. 2022; 14(8): 1627 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
Cytotoxicity and Bioactivity of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate and Bioactive Endodontic Type Cements: A Systematic Review |
|
| Uma Dixit,Viral Maru,Rucha Shivajirao Bhise Patil,Rupanshi Parekh | | International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 14(1): 30 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 22 |
Silica-Based Bioactive Glasses and Their Applications in Hard Tissue Regeneration: A Review |
|
| Nuha Al-Harbi,Hiba Mohammed,Yas Al-Hadeethi,Ahmed Samir Bakry,Ahmad Umar,Mahmoud Ali Hussein,Mona Aly Abbassy,Karthik Gurunath Vaidya,Ghada Al Berakdar,Elmoiz Merghni Mkawi,Manasa Nune | | Pharmaceuticals. 2021; 14(2): 75 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
Recent Progress on Biodegradable Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Prepared by Thermally-Induced Phase Separation (TIPS) |
|
| Reza Zeinali,Luis J. del Valle,Joan Torras,Jordi Puiggalí | | International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(7): 3504 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 24 |
Bone Grafts and Substitutes in Dentistry: A Review of Current Trends and Developments |
|
| Rusin Zhao,Ruijia Yang,Paul R. Cooper,Zohaib Khurshid,Amin Shavandi,Jithendra Ratnayake | | Molecules. 2021; 26(10): 3007 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 25 |
Role of bioglass in enamel remineralization: Existing strategies and future prospects—A narrative review |
|
| Ramya Ramadoss,Rajashree Padmanaban,Balakumar Subramanian | | Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 26 |
Machine Learning and Big Data Provide Crucial Insight for Future Biomaterials Discovery and Research |
|
| Jacob Kerner,Alan Dogan,Horst von Recum | | Acta Biomaterialia. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 27 |
Remineralization effects of self-assembling peptide
P
11
-4 associated with three materials on early enamel carious lesions: An in vitro study |
|
| Mahtab Memarpour,Faranak Razmjouei,Azade Rafiee,Mehrdad Vossoughi | | Microscopy Research and Technique. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 28 |
Emerging marine derived nanohydroxyapatite and their composites for implant and biomedical applications |
|
| Satheesh kumar Balu,Swetha Andra,Jaison Jeevanandam,Manisha Vidyavathy S,Sampath V | | Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2021; 119: 104523 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 29 |
Bioactive glass: A multifunctional delivery system |
|
| Smriti Gupta,Shreyasi Majumdar,Sairam Krishnamurthy | | Journal of Controlled Release. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 30 |
Design of multilayer hybrid sol-gel coatings with bifunctional barrier-bioactive response on the Elektron 21 magnesium alloy for biomedical applications |
|
| K.S. Durán,N. Hernández,L.M. Rueda,C.A. Hernández-Barrios,A.E. Coy,F. Viejo | | Journal of Magnesium and Alloys. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 31 |
Early-stage bone regeneration of hyaluronic acid supplemented with porous 45s5 bioglass-derived granules: an injectable system |
|
| Soo Bin Im,Garima Tripathi,Thi Thao Thanh Le,Byong Taek Lee | | Biomedical Materials. 2021; 16(4): 045034 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 32 |
Effects of strontium ions with potential antibacterial activity on in vivo bone regeneration |
|
| Nafiseh Baheiraei,Hossein Eyni,Bita Bakhshi,Raziyeh Najafloo,Navid Rabiee | | Scientific Reports. 2021; 11(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 33 |
A review on diatom biosilicification and their adaptive ability to uptake other metals into their frustules for potential application in bone repair |
|
| A. Reid,F. Buchanan,M. Julius,P. J. Walsh | | Journal of Materials Chemistry B. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 34 |
FDA-approved bone grafts and bone graft substitute devices in bone regeneration |
|
| Cassidy E. Gillman,Ambalangodage C. Jayasuriya | | Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2021; 130: 112466 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 35 |
Studying the Toxicity of High-Silica Porous Glass by Biotesting |
|
| T. A. Tsyganova,O. V. Rakhimova | | Glass Physics and Chemistry. 2021; 47(1): 66 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 36 |
Angiogenic Potential of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells and the Possibility of Their Use for Skin Regeneration |
|
| P. J. Hamed Nosrati,Zohreh Alizadeh,Mohammad Khodaei,Mehdi Banitalebi-Dehkordi | | Cell and Tissue Biology. 2021; 15(5): 409 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 37 |
Alginate/Bioactive Glass Beads: Synthesis, Morphological and Compositional Changes Caused by SBF Immersion Method |
|
| Hermes de Souza Costa,Mariane Rezende Dias | | Materials Research. 2021; 24(4) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 38 |
Prospect of Metal Ceramic (Titanium-Wollastonite) Composite as Permanent Bone Implants: A Narrative Review |
|
| Lohashenpahan Shanmuganantha,Azmi Baharudin,Abu Bakar Sulong,Roslinda Shamsudin,Min Hwei Ng | | Materials. 2021; 14(2): 277 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 39 |
Inverse 3D Printing with Variations of the Strand Width of the Resulting Scaffolds for Bone Replacement |
|
| Michael Seidenstuecker,Pia Schilling,Lucas Ritschl,Svenja Lange,Hagen Schmal,Anke Bernstein,Steffen Esslinger | | Materials. 2021; 14(8): 1964 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 40 |
Main 3D Manufacturing Techniques for Customized Bone Substitutes. A Systematic Review |
|
| Javier Montero,Alicia Becerro,Beatriz Pardal-Peláez,Norberto Quispe-López,Juan-Francisco Blanco,Cristina Gómez-Polo | | Materials. 2021; 14(10): 2524 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 41 |
Bioactive Glass Applications: A Literature Review of Human Clinical Trials |
|
| Maria Cannio,Devis Bellucci,Judith A. Roether,Dino. N. Boccaccini,Valeria Cannillo | | Materials. 2021; 14(18): 5440 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 42 |
Machine Learning and Big Data Provide Crucial Insight for Future Biomaterials Discovery and Research |
|
| Jacob Kerner,Alan Dogan,Horst von Recum | | SSRN Electronic Journal. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 43 |
Medical devices biomaterials – A review |
|
| AJ Festas,A Ramos,JP Davim | | Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications. 2020; 234(1): 218 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 44 |
Preparation and Structural Characterization of New Photopolymerizable Transparent Aluminum-Phosphate Hybrid Materials as Resins for 3D Printing |
|
| Gabriel Toshiaki Tayama,Silvia Helena Santagneli,Hellmut Eckert,Shane Pawsey,Younes Messaddeq | | The Journal of Physical Chemistry C. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 45 |
Interface between Water–Solvent Mixtures and a Hydrophobic Surface |
|
| Annemarie Prihoda,Johannes Will,Patrick Duchstein,Bahanur Becit,Felix Lossin,Torben Schindler,Marvin Berlinghof,Hans-Georg Steinrück,Florian Bertram,Dirk Zahn,Tobias Unruh | | Langmuir. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 46 |
Sol–Gel-Derived Bioactive and Antibacterial Multi-Component Thin Films by the Spin-Coating Technique |
|
| Logan D. Soule,Natalia Pajares Chomorro,Kayla Chuong,Nathan Mellott,Neal Hammer,Kurt D. Hankenson,Xanthippi Chatzistavrou | | ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 47 |
Hollow silica reinforced magnesium nanocomposites with enhanced mechanical and biological properties with computational modeling analysis for mandibular reconstruction |
|
| Somasundaram Prasadh,Vyasaraj Manakari,Gururaj Parande,Raymond Chung Wen Wong,Manoj Gupta | | International Journal of Oral Science. 2020; 12(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 48 |
Characterization of electron beam deposited Nb2O5 coatings for biomedical applications |
|
| Mihaela Dinu,Laurentiu Braic,Sibu C. Padmanabhan,Michael A. Morris,Irina Titorencu,Vasile Pruna,Anca Parau,Nadezhda Romanchikova,Leslie F. Petrik,Alina Vladescu | | Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2020; 103: 103582 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 49 |
Fabrication and characterization of ZrO2 incorporated SiO2–CaO–P2O5 bioactive glass scaffolds |
|
| Pawan Kumar,Vinod Kumar,Rajnish Kumar,Ravinder Kumar,Catalin I. Pruncu | | Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2020; : 103854 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 50 |
Soda lime silicate glass and clam Shell act as precursor in synthesize calcium fluoroaluminosilicate glass to fabricate glass ionomer cement with different ageing time |
|
| Mohammad Zulhasif Ahmad Khiri,Khamirul Amin Matori,Mohd Hafiz Mohd Zaid,Azurahanim Che Abdullah,Norhazlin Zainuddin,Wan Nurshamimi Wan Jusoh,Rohaniah Abdul Jalil,Nadia Asyikin Abdul Rahman,Esra Kul,Siti Aisyah Abdul Wahab,Nuraidayanie Effendy | | Journal of Materials Research and Technology. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 51 |
Fabrication and properties of developed Collagen/Strontium-doped Bioglass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering |
|
| Seyed Ali Mosaddad,Mohsen Yazdanian,Hamid Tebyanian,Elahe Tahmasebi,Alireza Yazdanian,Alexander Seifalian,Maryam Tavakolizadeh | | Journal of Materials Research and Technology. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 52 |
Enhanced mechanical and biocompatible properties of strontium ions doped mesoporous bioactive glass |
|
| S. Amudha,J. Ramana Ramya,K. Thanigai Arul,A. Deepika,P. Sathiamurthi,B. Mohana,K. Asokan,Chung-Li Dong,S. Narayana Kalkura | | Composites Part B: Engineering. 2020; : 108099 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 53 |
Review on current limits and potentialities of technologies for biomedical ceramic scaffolds production |
|
| Ana Marques,Georgina Miranda,Filipe Silva,Paulo Pinto,Óscar Carvalho | | Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 54 |
Synthesis and characterization of novel calcium phosphate glass-derived cements for vital pulp therapy |
|
| Jerry Howard,Levi Gardner,Zahra Saifee,Aladdin Geleil,Isaac Nelson,John S. Colombo,Steven E. Naleway,Krista Carlson | | Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 2020; 31(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 55 |
Biomineralization, antibacterial activity and mechanical properties of biowaste derived diopside nanopowders |
|
| Rajan Choudhary,Senthil Kumar Venkatraman,Ankita Chatterjee,Jana Vecstaudza,Maria Josefa Yáñez-Gascón,Horacio Pérez-Sánchez,Janis Locs,Jayanthi Abraham,Sasikumar Swamiappan | | Advanced Powder Technology. 2019; 30(9): 1950 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 56 |
Bioinorganics and Wound Healing |
|
| Benjamin Dalisson,Jake Barralet | | Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2019; : 1900764 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 57 |
Hydrolytic degradation and cytotoxicity of poly(lactic-
co
-glycolic acid)/multiwalled carbon nanotubes for bone regeneration |
|
| Esperanza Díaz,Igor Puerto,Iban Sandonis,Sylvie Ribeiro,Senentxu Lanceros-Mendez | | Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 2019; : 48439 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 58 |
Bioactivity and up-conversion luminescence characteristics of Yb3+/Tb3+ co-doped bioglass system |
|
| S. Kalaivani,S. Srividiya,U. Vijayalakshmi,S. Kannan | | Ceramics International. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 59 |
Mechanical, thermal, and morphological properties of natural rubber/45S5 Bioglass® fibrous mat with ribbon-like morphology produced by solution blow spinning |
|
| Eliraldrin Amorin Sousa,Michael Jones Silva,Alex Otávio Sanches,Viviane Oliveira Soares,Aldo Eloizo Job,José Antonio Malmonge | | European Polymer Journal. 2019; 119: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 60 |
Additive Manufacturing of Bioceramic Scaffolds by Combination of FDM and Slip Casting |
|
| Steffen Esslinger,Rainer Gadow | | Journal of the European Ceramic Society. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 61 |
Enhanced antimicrobial properties of bioactive glass using strontium and silver oxide nanocomposites |
|
| Narender Ranga,Ekta Poonia,Shivani Jakhar,Ashok K. Sharma,Atul Kumar,Sunita Devi,Surender Duhan | | Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies. 2019; 7(1): 75 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 62 |
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Three Antimicrobial Agents Used for Regenerative Endodontics: An In Vitro Study |
|
| Reem W. Sadek,Sybel M. Moussa,Rania M. El Backly,Abdel Fattah Hammouda | | Microbial Drug Resistance. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 63 |
Versatile bioactive and antibacterial coating system based on silica, gentamicin, and chitosan: Improving early stage performance of titanium implants |
|
| J. Ballarre,T. Aydemir,L. Liverani,J.A. Roether,W.H. Goldmann,A.R. Boccaccini | | Surface and Coatings Technology. 2019; : 125138 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 64 |
Adjustable Polyurethane Foam as Filling Material for a Novel Spondyloplasty: Biomechanics and Biocompatibility |
|
| Hongzhen Jiang,Kerim Hakan Sitoci-Ficici,Clemens Reinshagen,Marek Molcanyi,Jozef Zivcak,Radovan Hudak,Thorsten Laube,Matthias Schnabelrauch,Jürgen Weisser,Ute Schäfer,Thomas Pinzer,Gabriele Schackert,Xifeng Zhang,Mario Wähler,Uta Brautferger,Bernhard Rieger | | World Neurosurgery. 2018; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 65 |
The effects of strontium incorporation on a novel gelatin/bioactive glass bone graft: in vitro and in vivo characterization |
|
| Saeedeh zare jalise,Nafiseh Baheiraei,Fatemeh Baghery | | Ceramics International. 2018; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 66 |
Vacuumed collagen-impregnated bioglass scaffolds: Characterization and influence on proliferation and differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells |
|
| Hueliton Wilian Kido,Paulo Roberto Gabbai-Armelin,Ingrid Regina Avanzi,Antonio Carlos da Silva,Kelly Rossetti Fernandes,Carlos Alberto Fortulan,Ana Claudia Muniz Rennó | | Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. 2018; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 67 |
Novel Bioactive Zinc Phosphate Dental Cement with Low Irritation and Enhanced Microhardness |
|
| Tamer M. Hamdy,Sabry A. El-Korashy | | e-Journal of Surface Science and Nanotechnology. 2018; 16(0): 431 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 68 |
Engineering Musculoskeletal Tissue Interfaces |
|
| Ece Bayrak,Pinar Yilgor Huri | | Frontiers in Materials. 2018; 5 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 69 |
Using an environmentally benign and degradable elastomer in soft robotics |
|
| Stephanie Walker,Jacob Rueben,Tessa Van Volkenburg,Samantha Hemleben,Cindy Grimm,John Simonsen,Yigit Mengüç | | International Journal of Intelligent Robotics and Applications. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 70 |
Dual-surface modification of titanium alloy with anodizing treatment and bioceramic particles for enhancing prosthetic devices |
|
| M. V. Gonzalez Galdos,J. I. Pastore,J. Ballarre,S. M. Ceré | | Journal of Materials Science. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 71 |
Novel bioglasses for bone tissue repair and regeneration: Effect of glass design on sintering ability, ion release and biocompatibility |
|
| Elena Mancuso,Oana A. Bretcanu,Martyn Marshall,Mark A. Birch,Andrew W. McCaskie,Kenneth W. Dalgarno | | Materials & Design. 2017; 129: 239 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 72 |
Bioactive glass for dentin remineralization: A systematic review |
|
| Delihta Fernando,Nina Attik,Nelly Pradelle-Plasse,Phil Jackson,Brigitte Grosgogeat,Pierre Colon | | Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 73 |
3D Powder Printed Bioglass and ß-Tricalcium Phosphate Bone Scaffolds |
|
| Michael Seidenstuecker,Laura Kerr,Anke Bernstein,Hermann Mayr,Norbert Suedkamp,Rainer Gadow,Peter Krieg,Sergio Hernandez Latorre,Ralf Thomann,Frank Syrowatka,Steffen Esslinger | | Materials. 2017; 11(1): 13 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 74 |
Enhancing the hardness/compression/damping response of magnesium by reinforcing with biocompatible silica nanoparticulates |
|
| Gururaj Parande,Vyasaraj Manakari,Ganesh Kumar Meenashisundaram,Manoj Gupta | | International Journal of Materials Research. 2016; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 75 |
Intrinsic Antibacterial Borosilicate Glasses for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications |
|
| João S. Fernandes,Margarida Martins,Nuno M. Neves,Maria Helena Figueira Vaz Fernandes,Rui L. Reis,Ricardo A. Pires | | ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 2016; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 76 |
Biological behavior of bioactive glasses and their composites |
|
| Saba Zahid,Asma Tufail Shah,Arshad Jamal,Aqif Anwar Chaudhry,Abdul Samad Khan,Ather Farooq Khan,Nawshad Muhammad,Ihtesham ur Rehman | | RSC Adv.. 2016; 6(74): 70197 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 77 |
Novel glass-like coatings for cardiovascular implant application: Preparation, characterization and cellular interaction |
|
| Karin Kiefer,Martin Amlung,Oral Cenk Aktas,Peter W. de Oliveira,Hashim Abdul-Khaliq | | Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2016; 58: 812 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 78 |
Development and characterization of a bioglass/chitosan composite as an injectable bone substitute |
|
| Parastoo Khoshakhlagh,Sayed Mahmood Rabiee,Gita Kiaee,Pedram Heidari,Amir K. Miri,Roshanak Moradi,Fathollah Moztarzadeh,Roya Ravarian | | Carbohydrate Polymers. 2016; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 79 |
Antibacterial and in vivo reactivity of bioactive glass and poly(vinyl alcohol) composites prepared by melting and sol-gel techniques |
|
| Salha Boulila,Hassane Oudadesse,Hafed Elfeki,Rim Kallel,Bertrand Lefeuvre,Mostafa Mabrouk,Slim Tounsi,Dhekra Mhalla,Amany Mostafa,Khansa Chaabouni,Fatma Makni-Ayedi,Allal Barroug,Tahia Boudawara,Abdelfattah Elfeki | | Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering. 2016; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 80 |
Cavity cutting efficiency of a BioglassTM and alumina powder combination utilized in an air abrasion system |
|
| IMRAN FAROOQ,IMRAN ALAM MOHEET,EMAD ALSHWAIMI | | Bulletin of Materials Science. 2016; 39(6): 1531 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 81 |
Composite Hydrogels for Bone Regeneration |
|
| Gianluca Tozzi,Arianna De Mori,Antero Oliveira,Marta Roldo | | Materials. 2016; 9(4): 267 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 82 |
A novel bioactive agent improves adhesion of resin-modified glass-ionomer to dentin |
|
| Estrella Osorio,Ticiane Fagundes,Maria Fidela Navarro,Edgar Dutra Zanotto,Oscar Peitl,Raquel Osorio,Manuel Toledano-Osorio,Manuel Toledano | | Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology. 2015; 29(15): 1543 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 83 |
Degradation and Characterization of Resorbable Phosphate-Based Glass Thin-Film Coatings Applied by Radio-Frequency Magnetron Sputtering |
|
| Bryan W. Stuart,Miquel Gimeno-Fabra,Joel Segal,Ifty Ahmed,David M. Grant | | ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2015; 7(49): 27362 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 84 |
Interruption of Electrical Conductivity of Titanium Dental Implants Suggests a Path Towards Elimination Of Corrosion |
|
| Alex E. Pozhitkov,Diane Daubert,Ashley Brochwicz Donimirski,Douglas Goodgion,Mikhail Y. Vagin,Brian G. Leroux,Colby M. Hunter,Thomas F. Flemmig,Peter A. Noble,James D. Bryers,M. A. Pérez | | PLOS ONE. 2015; 10(10): e0140393 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 85 |
Effects of bioactive cements incorporating zinc-bioglass nanoparticles on odontogenic and angiogenic potential of human dental pulp cells |
|
| Jun Zhang,Yong-Duk Park,Won-Jung Bae,Ahmed El-Fiqi,Song-Hee Shin,Eun-Jung Lee,Hae-Won Kim,Eun-Cheol Kim | | Journal of Biomaterials Applications. 2015; 29(7): 954 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
 |
|
|
|
