Synthesis and osteo-compatibility of novel reduced graphene oxide–aminosilica hybrid nanosheets

Chen, Song; Du, Xueyan; Jia, Lan; Chang, Haixin; Ikoma, Toshiyuki; Hanagata, Nobutaka

doi:10.1016/j.msec.2015.12.056

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…53 The type of the MSCs in fifteen studies 19,32,36,40,[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] was not defined. Sixteen studies used preosteoblast cells, 14,[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] including mouse osteoblastic cells 14, 65-74, 77-82 (MC3T3-E1) and rat calvarial osteoprogenitors, 75 while the type of the preosteoblast cells in one study 76 was not defined. Five articles 13, 83-86 used osteoblasts.…”

Section: Cell Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The materials were metals or metalloids, polymers and mineral substrates. The metal or metalloid category consists of silicon (Si), 65 zinc oxide (ZnO), 89 28 and nitinol (NiTi). 57 Polymers include poly(L-lactide) (PLLA), 46 poly(dopamine) (PDA), 68 poly(ɛ-caprolactone) (PCL), 14,36,203 poly(ethylenimine) (PEI), 37, 82 poly(lacticcoglycolic acid) (PLGA)-tussah, 61 silk fibroin (SF), 43 polyethylene terephthalate-based artificial ligament group (PET-ALs), 78 47,65,89 and inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) 49,71 were employed to measure the release rate of ions, and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) 64 was utilized to assess the Ca/P ratio.…”

Section: Chemical Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The metal or metalloid category consists of silicon (Si), 65 zinc oxide (ZnO), 89 28 and nitinol (NiTi). 57 Polymers include poly(L-lactide) (PLLA), 46 poly(dopamine) (PDA), 68 poly(ɛ-caprolactone) (PCL), 14,36,203 poly(ethylenimine) (PEI), 37, 82 poly(lacticcoglycolic acid) (PLGA)-tussah, 61 silk fibroin (SF), 43 polyethylene terephthalate-based artificial ligament group (PET-ALs), 78 47,65,89 and inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) 49,71 were employed to measure the release rate of ions, and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) 64 was utilized to assess the Ca/P ratio. Additional assays and measures used for sample characterization include thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA), 37,71,82,84,87 energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), 33 75 swelling study, 75 weight loss measurement, 60 diametral tensile strength (DTS), 60 nanoindentation measurements, 67, 76 photoluminescence (PL) spectra, 94 elemental analysis experiment, 25 magnetometry, 25 selected-area electron diffraction (SAED), 57, 91 wettability evaluation, 89 roughness evaluation 14,28,89 and PL spectrum.…”

Section: Chemical Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Graphene has unique physiochemical features, especially its potential for osteogenic induction of stem cells, that make it a promising material for promoting surface modification and bioactive character of metal-based composites. 48 Several studies 13,26,28,45,47,50,65,69,71,76,86,89,92 raised a debate regarding the influential role of metals combined with graphene on cell proliferation and viability.…”

Section: Graphene and Metalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…76 Graphene sheets can act as substrates for metallic particles and as the storage sites for dissolved metal ions; therefore, preventing the aggregation of metallic particles, decreasing the toxic effects of metallic particles and resulting in the sustained release of metal ions. 133 For instance, In studies by Chen S et al 65 and Chen J et al, 89 the controlled release of ions, including Si (Iv) and Zn, from GO compositions stimulated cell proliferation. Release of >3 μg/mL Zn has been shown to be cytotoxic to cells.…”

Section: Graphene and Metalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

In vitro effect of graphene structures as an osteoinductive factor in bone tissue engineering: A systematic review

Mohammadrezaei

Golzar

Rad

et al. 2018

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Graphene and its derivatives have been well-known as influential factors in differentiating stem/progenitor cells toward the osteoblastic lineage. However, there have been many controversies in the literature regarding the parameters effect on bone regeneration, including graphene concentration, size, type, dimension, hydrophilicity, functionalization, and composition. This study attempts to produce a comprehensive review regarding the given parameters and their effects on stimulating cell behaviors such as proliferation, viability, attachment and osteogenic differentiation. In this study, a systematic search of MEDLINE database was conducted for in vitro studies on the use of graphene and its derivatives for bone tissue engineering from January 2000 to February 2018, organized according to the PRISMA statement. According to reviewed articles, different graphene derivative, including graphene, graphene oxide (GO) and reduced graphene oxide (RGO) with mass ratio ≤1.5 wt % for all and concentration up to 50 μg/mL for graphene and GO, and 60 μg/mL for RGO, are considered to be safe for most cell types. However, these concentrations highly depend on the types of cells. It was discovered that graphene with lateral size less than 5 µm, along with GO and RGO with lateral dimension less than 1 µm decrease cell viability. In addition, the three-dimensional structure of graphene can promote cell-cell interaction, migration and proliferation. When graphene and its derivatives are incorporated with metals, polymers, and minerals, they frequently show promoted mechanical properties and bioactivity. Last, graphene and its derivatives have been found to increase the surface roughness and porosity, which can highly enhance cell adhesion and differentiation. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 106A: 2284-2343, 2018.

show abstract

Section: Cell Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Chemical Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Chemical Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Graphene and Metalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Graphene and Metalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

In vitro effect of graphene structures as an osteoinductive factor in bone tissue engineering: A systematic review

Mohammadrezaei

Golzar

Rad

et al. 2018

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Development of Graphene‐Based Materials in Bone Tissue Engineaering

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, general treatments of criticalsized bone defects include autografts, allografts, and the use of bone regeneration biomaterials. [1] Autograft is the gold standard approach due to its satisfying osteogenicity. But it also faces drawbacks such as an invasive surgical operation for bone harvest and scarcity of available donor sites. [2] Allograft is accompanied by the risk of disease transmission and immunological rejection. [2] Therefore, significant efforts have been devoted to finding alternative approaches for bone regeneration. Bone tissue engineering (BTE) provides a promising alternative strategy to realize higher-level restoration of bone defects. BTE exploits the elaborate combination of scaffolds, seeding cells, and biological factors to form a functional substitute or assist in situ regeneration. In most BTE research, stem cells are implanted into defective bone sites with the support of a biomaterial-based scaffold and are supposed to proliferate and differentiate into osteoblasts to promote bone regeneration. However, the performances of many current BTE systems could not meet the therapeutic expectation due to problems such as insufficient osteogenic differentiation and limited vascularization. [3][4][5] Many studies tried to improve the performance of BTE via enhancing the properties of the biomaterial-based scaffold. [6] In addition to traditional macroor microscale forms of metals, ceramics, and polymers, their nanoscale counterparts have been extensively explored for BTE due to their unique properties. [7][8][9][10] Ever since Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov [11] discovered a simple and feasible method for graphene isolation, graphene family materials (GFMs) have attracted great interest in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. In BTE, bGBMs show promising potentials such as mechanical strength, high specific surface, and adsorption ability. [12][13][14][15][16][17] According to the composition, bGBMs could be categorized into GFMs and GFMs-containing composite materials (GCMs). GFMs refer to graphene and its derivatives, containing 0D graphene quantum dots (GQDs), 2D graphene (GR), graphene oxide (GO), and reduced graphene oxide (rGO), 3D graphite, etc. Among them, GQDs, GR, GO, and rGO could be obtained by chemical approaches using graphite as the starting material. GCMs are composite materials consisting of GFMs and other materials such Bone regeneration-related graphene-based materials (bGBMs) are increasingly attracting attention in tissue engineering due to their special physical and chemical properties. The purpose of this review is to quantitatively analyze mass academic literature in the field of bGBMs through scientometrics software CiteSpace, to demonstrate the rules and trends of bGBMs, thus to analyze and summarize the mechanisms behind the rules, and to provide clues for future research. First, the research status, hotspots, and frontiers of bGBMs are analyzed in an intuitively and vividly visualized way. Next, the extracted important subjects such as fabricatio...

show abstract

Graphene oxide as a scaffold for bone regeneration

Holt

Wright

Arnold

et al. 2016

WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Graphene oxide (GO), the oxidized form of graphene, holds great potential as a component of biomedical devices, deriving utility from its ability to support a broad range of chemical functionalities and its exceptional mechanical, electronic, and thermal properties. GO composites can be tuned chemically to be biomimetic, and mechanically to be stiff yet strong. These unique properties make GO-based materials promising candidates as a scaffold for bone regeneration. However, questions still exist as to the compatibility and long-term toxicity of nanocarbon materials. Unlike other nanocarbons, GO is meta-stable, water dispersible, and autodegrades in water on the timescale of months to humic acid-like materials, the degradation products of all organic matter. Thus, GO offers better prospects for biological compatibility over other nanocarbons. Recently, many publications have demonstrated enhanced osteogenic performance of GO-containing composites. Ongoing work toward surface modification or coating strategies could be useful to minimize the inflammatory response and improve compatibility of GO as a component of medical devices. Furthermore, biomimetic modifications could offer mechanical and chemical environments that encourage osteogenesis. So long as care is given to assure their safety, GO-based materials may be poised to become the next generation scaffold for bone regeneration. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2017, 9:e1437. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1437 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

show abstract

Synthesis and osteo-compatibility of novel reduced graphene oxide–aminosilica hybrid nanosheets

Cited by 12 publications

References 37 publications

In vitro effect of graphene structures as an osteoinductive factor in bone tissue engineering: A systematic review

In vitro effect of graphene structures as an osteoinductive factor in bone tissue engineering: A systematic review

Development of Graphene‐Based Materials in Bone Tissue Engineaering

Graphene oxide as a scaffold for bone regeneration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About