In vitro degradation and angiogenesis of the porous calcium silicate-gelatin composite scaffold
Journal of Materials Chemistry B, ISSN: 2050-750X, Vol: 4, Issue: 3, Page: 505-512
2016
- 18Citations
- 21Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations18
- Citation Indexes18
- 18
- CrossRef16
- Captures21
- Readers21
- 21
Article Description
Calcium silicate-based materials have attracted a great deal of interest due to their osteogenesis and have been used as implant materials for bone repair and regeneration. The purpose of this study was to use gelatin with and without genipin cross-linking for controlling degradation, improving mechanical properties, and enhancing angiogenesis of calcium silicate bioceramics. The in vitro degradation of gelatin-containing scaffolds was analysed in a simulated body fluid (SBF) solution. Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) were used to examine angiogenesis. The results indicated that the gelatin-containing scaffolds showed a diametral tensile strength of about 2 MPa and a porosity of about 60% falling within the range of values reported for the cancellous bone. Apatite precipitation occurred on all scaffold surfaces after soaking in SBF for 1 week. The gelatin-containing scaffold without cross-linking exhibited a greater weight loss and porosity than the control without gelatin. The cross-linking agent, genipin, significantly improved the mechanical stability of the composite scaffold. The gelatin enhanced the viable cell populations. More importantly, gelatin actively promoted the secretion of angiogenic factors such as von Willebrand factor and angiopoietin-1 in hMSCs. It is concluded that combination of calcium silicate and gelatin may synergistically enhance clinically desirable functions in terms of controlled degradation, improved mechanical properties, and enhanced angiogenesis.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84954042230&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c5tb02401c; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32263214; https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C5TB02401C; http://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C5TB02401C; http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2016/TB/C5TB02401C; https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c5tb02401c; https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/tb/c5tb02401c
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know