Three‐dimensional starch‐based scaffold decorated with 64S bio‐glass for accelerating rat model bone defect repair
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Starch (ST)‐based scaffold consists of aloe vera (AV) and 64S bioactive glass (BG) reinforced with quail egg shell powder (QE) was successfully fabricated through freeze‐drying technique. Scaffolds revealed antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, forming inhibition zones of 12.64–16.23 mm. Collagen I and Runt‐related transcription factor 2 expressions as early‐stage osteogenic differentiation markers were reported to be in the ranges of 34.11% ± 1.46% to 69.47% ± 1.64% and 34.31% ± 2.43% to 71.47% ± .94%, respectively. Moreover, the in vivo expression of osteopontin after 4 weeks of implantation was 25.39% ± 2.92%/500 μm for the blank group and 56.68% ± 4.09%/500 μm for the scaffold group, respectively. Moreover, new bone formation and proliferation of collagen fibers were observed in the scaffold group. Obtained results revealed that AV incorporated ST‐BG‐QE scaffold can be considered a promising candidate for bone tissue repair.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Materials Science and Engineering Tarbiat Modares University Tehran Iran
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/adfm.20201060910.1002/adfm.202010609 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.21510.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.215 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.matlet.2019.02.08810.1016/j.matlet.2019.02.088 ↗
4. 10.1042/EBC2021000310.1042/EBC20210003 ↗
5. 10.3390/polym1002010910.3390/polym10020109 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.03110.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.031 ↗
7. Synthesis and characterization properties of gelatin‐fluorhydroxyapatite composite scaffold for application in bone tissue engineering and investigation of cellular attachment
8. 10.1002/jbm.a.3627210.1002/jbm.a.36272 ↗
9. 10.1021/acsomega.0c0559610.1021/acsomega.0c05596 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11133410.1016/j.msec.2020.111334 ↗
11. 10.3390/ijms2204170810.3390/ijms22041708 ↗
12. 10.3390/ijms2020517410.3390/ijms20205174 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.07.05410.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.07.054 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.11.00510.1016/j.tibtech.2019.11.005 ↗
15. 10.3390/molecules2708247310.3390/molecules27082473 ↗
16. Review on the phytochemistry and toxicological profiles of Aloe vera and Aloe ferox
17. 10.1002/ptr.622710.1002/ptr.6227 ↗
18. 10.4103/2221-1691.31956710.4103/2221-1691.319567 ↗
19. 10.2174/138955751966619100916264110.2174/1389557519666191009162641 ↗
20. 10.1186/s13020-020-00313-110.1186/s13020-020-00313-1 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.05.10210.1016/j.ceramint.2020.05.102 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.msec.2019.10982910.1016/j.msec.2019.109829 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.09.04410.1016/j.carbpol.2011.09.044 ↗
24. 10.1016/B978-0-12-816770-0.00017-410.1016/B978-0-12-816770-0.00017-4 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.02.11110.1016/j.ceramint.2021.02.111 ↗
26. 10.1021/acsabm.9b0113910.1021/acsabm.9b01139 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.11.23310.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.11.233 ↗
28. Manufacture and characterization of hydroxyapatite from quail egg shell using precipitation methods
29. 10.1007/s10856-016-5672-y10.1007/s10856-016-5672-y ↗
30. 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.04.02410.1016/j.actbio.2013.04.024 ↗
31. 10.1021/acsami.6b0490110.1021/acsami.6b04901 ↗
32. 10.1021/acsami.6b0101410.1021/acsami.6b01014 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.15810.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.158 ↗
34. 10.2147/IJN.S26763210.2147/IJN.S267632 ↗
35. J Biomater Appl 2021 Fabrication characterization and evaluation of the efficacy of gelatin/hyaluronic acid microporous scaffolds suffused with aloe vera in a rat burn model
36. 10.1007/s40204-018-0089-y10.1007/s40204-018-0089-y ↗
37. 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.07.01910.1016/j.actbio.2015.07.019 ↗
38. 10.3390/ma1323556010.3390/ma13235560 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2021.12102810.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2021.121028 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2020.12049910.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2020.120499 ↗
41. 10.3390/biomedicines812061610.3390/biomedicines8120616 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.msec.2015.03.05710.1016/j.msec.2015.03.057 ↗
43. 10.1080/00914037.2022.207127010.1080/00914037.2022.2071270 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.05110.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.051 ↗
45. 10.1021/acsami.0c0888010.1021/acsami.0c08880 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.polymer.2020.12323810.1016/j.polymer.2020.123238 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.polymer.2018.01.07010.1016/j.polymer.2018.01.070 ↗
48. 10.3390/polym1209204510.3390/polym12092045 ↗
49. 10.1007/s10924-020-01661-710.1007/s10924-020-01661-7 ↗
50. 10.1039/C5CP04622J10.1039/C5CP04622J ↗
51. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.03.02410.1016/j.indcrop.2013.03.024 ↗
52. 10.1111/jfpe.1209310.1111/jfpe.12093 ↗
53. 10.1002/app.3976010.1002/app.39760 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.03.03610.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.03.036 ↗
55. 10.3390/jfb901002510.3390/jfb9010025 ↗
56. 10.1039/C9BM00230H10.1039/C9BM00230H ↗
57. 10.1016/j.cej.2020.12509810.1016/j.cej.2020.125098 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.msec.2019.03.04910.1016/j.msec.2019.03.049 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.02.26610.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.02.266 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10818310.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108183 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.matlet.2016.12.11310.1016/j.matlet.2016.12.113 ↗
62. 10.4103/0019-5154.4478510.4103/0019-5154.44785 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2004.01.00210.1016/j.indcrop.2004.01.002 ↗
64. 10.4103/0972-0707.9794910.4103/0972-0707.97949 ↗
65. 10.1007/s13726-013-0219-210.1007/s13726-013-0219-2 ↗
66. 10.1089/ten.tea.2009.059310.1089/ten.tea.2009.0593 ↗
67. 10.3390/molecules1308159910.3390/molecules13081599 ↗
68. Comparison of the antibacterial effect of sodium hypochlorite and aloe vera solutions as root canal irrigants in human extracted teeth contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis
69. 10.1016/j.jtcme.2014.10.00610.1016/j.jtcme.2014.10.006 ↗
70. 10.1271/bbb.6065910.1271/bbb.60659 ↗
71. 10.1128/CMR.12.4.56410.1128/CMR.12.4.564 ↗
72. 10.1590/S1517-8382200900040002310.1590/S1517-83822009000400023 ↗
73. 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.10462910.1016/j.phrs.2020.104629 ↗
74. 10.1186/s43094-020-00161-810.1186/s43094-020-00161-8 ↗
75. 10.5115/acb.2015.48.4.23510.5115/acb.2015.48.4.235 ↗
76. 10.3390/ijms1805100110.3390/ijms18051001 ↗
77. 10.1038/4382410.1038/43824 ↗
78. Kaempferol promotes bone formation in part via the mTOR signaling pathway
79. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.08.11710.1016/j.bbrc.2014.08.117 ↗
80. 10.1080/09205063.2021.194909810.1080/09205063.2021.1949098 ↗
81. 10.1016/j.msec.2021.11253410.1016/j.msec.2021.112534 ↗
82. 10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.09710.1016/j.msec.2017.02.097 ↗
83. 10.1371/journal.pone.008101410.1371/journal.pone.0081014 ↗
84. 10.2147/IJN.S26763210.2147/IJN.S267632 ↗
85. 10.3390/jfb801000610.3390/jfb8010006 ↗
86. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.09.00610.1016/j.jconrel.2020.09.006 ↗
87. 10.11607/jomi.774510.11607/jomi.7745 ↗
88. 10.3390/ma1505192110.3390/ma15051921 ↗
89. 10.30649/denta.v16i1.610.30649/denta.v16i1.6 ↗
90. 10.1021/acsabm.9b0007710.1021/acsabm.9b00077 ↗
91. 10.3390/ph1402007510.3390/ph14020075 ↗
92. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.05.24810.1016/j.ceramint.2018.05.248 ↗
93. 10.1042/CS2017004710.1042/CS20170047 ↗
94. 10.1016/j.mce.2020.11107410.1016/j.mce.2020.111074 ↗
95. 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2019.10822810.1016/j.jnutbio.2019.108228 ↗
96. 10.1088/1468-6996/14/1/01500910.1088/1468-6996/14/1/015009 ↗
97. 10.1002/ppsc.20190046210.1002/ppsc.201900462 ↗
98. 10.3389/fbioe.2022.81813710.3389/fbioe.2022.818137 ↗
99. Calcitonin gene related peptide gene‐modified rat bone mesenchymal stem cells are effective seed cells in tissue engineering to repair skull defects
100. 10.1093/rb/rbaa06010.1093/rb/rbaa060 ↗