In Vitro Characterization / Degradation of Two Bioglasses Used as Synthetic Alloplasts for Bone Grafting

Article Preview

Abstract:

The objective of this study was to physico/chemically characterize a commercially available and a newly developed Bioglass and also to evaluate their degradation properties. Materials and Method: Two bioresorbable glasses were utilized, a bioglass synthesized at Chemical Engineering College (University of São Paulo, Lorena, São Paulo) (BG1), and the other bioglass utilized was Biogran (BG2) (3i Implant Innovations, Brazil). Particles size distribution histograms were developed for both materials, and then they were characterized by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) before and after immersion in simulated body fluid (SBF) for 30, 60, and 90 days. Results: The particle size distribution showed that the mean particle diameters at 10%, 50%, and 90% of the total volume were 17.65, 66.18, and 114.71 µm for BG1, and 354.54, 437.5, 525.00 µm for BG2. SEM images of BG1 showed that the as-received material had a rough surface and as the time of degradation elapsed, this surface became smooth. The images of BG2 showed that the as-received material also had a rough surface, and after immersion in SBF, the material’s crystalline content/morphology could be observed. The X-ray diffraction recorded that BG1 showed a silica peak, not seen at BG2. FTIR revealed that both bioglasses were of similar composition, except for the CO3-carbonate minor peak, present at the BG2 sample. Conclusions: 1. The particle size distribution showed a polydispersed pattern for both materials. 2. The material suffered degradation, and the decomposition increased as a function of immersion in SBF. 3. Both bioglasses had similar composition.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 396-398)

Pages:

23-26

Citation:

Online since:

October 2008

Export:

Price:

[1] S. Fujibayashi, M. Neo, H. M. Kim, T. Kokubo, T. Nakamura, Biomaterials 24 (2003) 13491356.

Google Scholar

[2] M. G. Cerruti, D. Greenspan, K. Powers, Biomaterials 26 (2005) 4903-4911.

Google Scholar

[3] H. Oonishi, S. Kushitani, E. Yasukawa, H. Iwaki, L. L. Hench, J. Wilson, E. Tsuji, T. Sugihara, Clin Orthop Relat Res (1997) 316-325.

DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199701000-00041

Google Scholar

[4] J. Hench, Wilson, J, An Introduction to Bioceramics. Advanced Series in Ceramics, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, Singapore, 1993, p. 386p.

Google Scholar

[5] S. Paciornik, Mauricio, MHP, Digital Imaging, in: G. Vander Voort (Ed. ) ASM Handbook - Metallography and Microstructures, ASM International, Materials Park, 2004, pp.368-402.

DOI: 10.31399/asm.hb.v09.a0003757

Google Scholar

[6] S. S. Kim, K. M. Ahn, M. S. Park, J. H. Lee, C. Y. Choi, B. S. Kim, J Biomed Mater Res A 80 (2007) 206-215.

Google Scholar

[7] H. J. Sung, C. Meredith, C. Johnson, Z. S. Galis, Biomaterials 25 (2004) 5735-5742.

Google Scholar