2020
DOI: 10.1080/10667857.2020.1774208
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microstructural analysis and bioactive response of selectively engineered glass-ceramics in simulated body fluid

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
17
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

4
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
3
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From the IR spectrum of μ‐FC glass ceramic, the peak splitting at 568 and 600 cm −1 can be observed, indicating the formation of crystalline apatite. [ 26 ] The IR peak at around 460 cm −1 is attributed to the SiOSi bending, present in both glass ceramic samples and glass ceramic loaded biocomposite bone scaffold samples. [ 26 ] The PO bending at 604 cm −1 is attributed to the phosphate based apatite phase.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…From the IR spectrum of μ‐FC glass ceramic, the peak splitting at 568 and 600 cm −1 can be observed, indicating the formation of crystalline apatite. [ 26 ] The IR peak at around 460 cm −1 is attributed to the SiOSi bending, present in both glass ceramic samples and glass ceramic loaded biocomposite bone scaffold samples. [ 26 ] The PO bending at 604 cm −1 is attributed to the phosphate based apatite phase.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 26 ] The IR peak at around 460 cm −1 is attributed to the SiOSi bending, present in both glass ceramic samples and glass ceramic loaded biocomposite bone scaffold samples. [ 26 ] The PO bending at 604 cm −1 is attributed to the phosphate based apatite phase. [ 27 ] Further, the presence of carbonate based CO 3 2− stretching vibration at 1366 cm −1 represents the carbonate based apatite in the μ‐FC glass ceramic structure.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…8,21 The key constraint of these metallic biomaterials is associated with significant difference in mechanical properties as compared to natural bone, resulting in stress shielding. 22,23 Additionally, these metallic biomaterials lack biodegradable properties, leading to mandatory secondary surgery for removing the implants, that may cause post-operative problems. 24,25 In this regard, magnesium (Mg), a biodegradable metallic biomaterial can offer a suitable alternative for load-bearing applications, considering that its mechanical properties such as Young's modulus and compressive strength are similar to natural human bone.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%