Hydroxyapatite Formation on Sol–Gel Derived Poly(ε-Caprolactone)/Bioactive Glass Hybrid Biomaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigation of novel biomaterials for bone regeneration is based on the development of scaffolds that exhibit bone-bonding ability, biocompatibility, and sufficient mechanical strength. In this study, using novel poly (ε-caprolactone)/bioactive glass (PCL/BG) hybrids with different organic/inorganic ratios, the effects of BG contents on the in vitro bone-like hydroxyapatite (HA) formation, mechanical properties, and biocompatibility were investigated. Rapid precipitation of HA on the PCL/BG hybrid surfaces were observed after incubating in simulated body fluid (SBF) for only 6 h, as confirmed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICPS). The ICPS elemental analysis results were further analyzed in terms of the Ca(2+) and PO4(3-) which were consumed to form the apatite layer. The results revealed that the rate and total amount of HA deposition decreased with an increase in PCL content. The compressive modulus and strength of the PCL/BG hybrids increased with the decrease in PCL content. The highest values were achieved at the lowest PCL content (10 wt %) and were around, 90 MPa and 1.4 GPa, respectively. To evaluate the cytotoxicity of PCL/BG bioactive hybrids, MC3T3-E1 osteoblast-like cells were cultured for up to 72 h. Our data indicated that whereas initial cell attachment was marginally lower than the control tissue culture poly styrene (TCPS) surface, the hybrid materials promoted cell growth in a time-dependent manner. Cell viability within the different PCL/BG hybrid samples appeared to be influenced by compositional differences whereby higher PCL contents correlated with slight reduction in cell viability. Taken together, this study adds important new information to our knowledge on hydroxyapatite formation, mechanical properties, and cytotoxic effects of PCL/BG hybrids prepared by the sol-gel process using a tertiary glass composition and may have considerable potential for bone tissue regeneration applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".