ArticleBiomedical materials (Bristol, England)2013
Effects of DCPD cement chemistry on degradation properties and cytocompatibility: comparison of MCPM/β-TCP and MCPM/HA formulations.
Article in Biomedical materials (Bristol, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Main 3D Manufacturing Techniques for Customized Bone Substitutes. A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Fabrication of Poly-l-lactic Acid/Dicalcium Phosphate Dihydrate Composite Scaffolds with High Mechanical Strength-Implications for Bone Tissue Engineering.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2015Article
- Long-Term In Vitro Degradation of a High-Strength Brushite Cement in Water, PBS, and Serum Solution.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- Self-setting calcium orthophosphate formulations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (DCPD) cements are attractive biomaterials for bone repair, and a number of different DCPD cement formulations have been proposed in the literature. In this study, we have specifically compared monocalcium phosphate monohydrate (MCPM)/hydroxyapatite (HA) and MCPM/β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) formulations to test the hypothesis that DCPD cement chemistry affects the degradation properties and cytocompatibility of the cement. Using simple in vitro models we found that MCPM/β-TCP formulations degraded primarily by DCPD dissolution, which was associated with a slight pH drop and relatively low mass loss. Cytocompatibility testing of cement conditioned culture media revealed no significant change in cell viability relative to the negative control for all of the MCPM/β-TCP formulations. In contrast, the MCPM/HA formulations were prone to undergo rapid conversion of DCPD to HA, resulting in a sharp pH drop and extensive mass loss. A stoichiometric excess of HA in the cement was found to accelerate the conversion process, and significant cytotoxicity was observed for the MCPM/HA formulations containing excess HA. Collectively, these results show that, although the product of the setting reaction is the same, DCPD cements produced with MCPM/HA and MCPM/β-TCP formulations differ significantly in their degradation properties and cytocompatibility. These differences may have important implications for the selection of a DCPD cement formulation for clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.