MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415641175 · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106197

Engineering bone repair with K21-Infused brushite cement: In-vitro and in-vivo insights

2025· article· en· W4415641175 on OpenAlexafffund
Umer Daood, Muhammad Ilyas, Lauren MacRae, Amna Rajpoot, Muhammad Nasir Saleem, Danish Muzaffar, Akanksha Srivastava, Michael Glogauer, Igor R. Blum, Zeeshan Sheikh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dentistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsBrushiteBone healingRegeneration (biology)Hard tissueBiocompatible materialBone cement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Calcium phosphate biomaterials are widely used for bone regeneration, yet antibacterial and mechanical limitations persist. Brushite cements offer biodegradability and osteoconductivity but lack antimicrobial effects. Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), such as K21, provide potent antibacterial activity and tissue healing potential. This study developed and evaluated a novel K21-doped brushite cement with enhanced antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties. METHODS: Brushite granules were synthesized from β-tricalcium phosphate and monocalcium phosphate monohydrate, followed by K21 drug loading (0.5 % and 1 % w/v). Material characterization used X-ray diffraction, Raman spectroscopy, and porosity analysis. In vitro tests included K21 release, antimicrobial efficacy against dual-species biofilms (P. aeruginosa, S. aureus), cytocompatibility with human gingival fibroblasts, and anti-inflammatory activity via protein denaturation assays. In vivo, mandibular critical-size defects were created in 24 rabbits (n = 8/group) and treated with control, 0.5 %, or 1 % K21-doped brushite cement. Bone regeneration and inflammatory response were assessed histologically at six weeks. RESULTS: K21 incorporation showed pH-sensitive release with higher drug content at increased concentrations. Both 0.5 % and 1 % K21 cements significantly reduced microbial viability, with 1 % showing stronger bacteriostatic effects. All groups exhibited good cytocompatibility. In vivo, 0.5 % K21-doped cement achieved the greatest new bone formation (∼95 %) and reduced inflammation. In contrast, 1 % formulations induced increased inflammation despite antibacterial efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: K21-doped brushite cements provide antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and bone regenerative benefits. The 0.5 % formulation demonstrated optimal balance of safety and efficacy, making it a promising candidate for clinical use in craniofacial applications. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bone graft failures are often linked to infection and inflammation. Incorporating K21 into brushite cement offers a dual-action material that not only supports bone regeneration but also reduces microbial risk and inflammatory complications, potentially improving outcomes in dental and maxillofacial defect repair.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of DentistrySame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207