Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

A New Biphasic Dicalcium Silicate Bone Cement Implant.

Zuleta F., Murciano A., Gehrke SA., Maté-Sánchez de Val JE., Calvo-Guirado JL., De Aza PN.

Laboratory Study on Face & Skin, published in Materials (Basel) (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Materials (Basel) (2017)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
28773119
PMCID
PMC5551801
DOI
10.3390/ma10070758
Citations
6

Abstract (original English)

This study aimed to investigate the processing parameters and biocompatibility of a novel biphasic dicalcium silicate (C₂S) cement. Biphasic α´ L + β-C₂S ss was synthesized by solid-state processing, and was used as a raw material to prepare the cement. In vitro bioactivity and biocompatibility studies were assessed by soaking the cement samples in simulated body fluid (SBF) and human adipose stem cell cultures. Two critical-sized defects of 6 mm Ø were created in 15 NZ tibias. A porous cement made of the high temperature forms of C₂S, with a low phosphorous substitution level, was produced. An apatite-like layer covered the cement's surface after soaking in SBF. The cell attachment test showed that α´ L + β-C₂S ss supported cells sticking and spreading after 24 h of culture. The cement paste (55.86 ± 0.23) obtained higher bone-to-implant contact (BIC) percentage values (better quality, closer contact) in the histomorphometric analysis, and defect closure was significant compared to the control group (plastic). The residual material volume of the porous cement was 35.42 ± 2.08% of the initial value. The highest BIC and bone formation percentages were obtained on day 60. These results suggest that the cement paste is advantageous for initial bone regeneration.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research