| Title |
Biodegradable mesoporous calcium–magnesium silicate-polybutylene succinate scaffolds for osseous tissue engineering
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s92598 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xinxin Zhang, Chi Zhang, Wei Xu, Biao Zhong, Feng Lin, Jian Zhang, Quanxiang Wang, Jiajin Ji, Jie Wei, Yang Zhang |
| Abstract |
The structural features of bone engineering scaffolds are expected to exhibit osteoinductive behavior and promote cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. In the present study, we employed synthesized ordered mesoporous calcium-magnesium silicate (om-CMS) and polybutylene succinate (PBSu) to develop a novel scaffold with potential applications in osseous tissue engineering. The characteristics, in vitro bioactivity of om-CMS/PBSu scaffold, as well as the cellular responses of MC3T3-E1 cells to the composite were investigated. Our results showed that the om-CMS/PBSu scaffold possesses a large surface area and highly ordered channel pores, resulting in improved degradation and biocompatibility compared to the PBSu scaffold. Moreover, the om-CMS/PBSu scaffold exhibited significantly higher bioactivity and induced apatite formation on its surface after immersion in the simulated body fluid. In addition, the om-CMS/PBSu scaffold provided a high surface area for cell attachment and released Ca, Mg, and Si ions to stimulate osteoblast proliferation. The unique surface characteristics and higher biological efficacy of the om-CMS/PBSu scaffold suggest that it has great potential for being developed into a system that can be employed in osseous tissue engineering. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 32% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Materials Science | 5 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,470
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,589
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#114
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.