ArticleCureus2024
Biocompatibility Evaluation of Ampicillin-Loaded Whitlockite for Bone Regeneration.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whitlockite as a next-generation biomaterial for bone regeneration: A systematic review ofJournal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
- Mesoporous Whitlockite: Synthesis, characterization, and in vitro biocompatibility for bone tissue engineering applications.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Whitlockite (WH), a rare phosphate mineral within the apatite group, shows potential for bone regeneration owing to its superior composition and biocompatibility compared to hydroxyapatite. It can serve as a carrier for bioactive molecules, gradually releasing them to stimulate bone growth and expedite healing. This study aims to assess the biocompatibility of antibiotic-loaded WH, focusing on ampicillin, for bone regeneration applications. Methodology WH particles loaded with varying concentrations of ampicillin (10 and 25 mM) underwent biocompatibility assessments using the MTT assay. One gram of particles was incubated in 10 mL of culture medium for 24 and 48 hours. Experimental groups included control, WH, WH with ampicillin at 10 mM (WH+A10), WH with ampicillin at 25 mM (WH+A25), and positive control treated with 0.1% Triton X detergent. Subsequently, after a three-day culture period, RunX2 gene expression, indicative of osteoblastic differentiation, was quantified using real-time PCR analysis. Results Our research evaluated the bioactivity of WH particles treated with human osteoblastic cells using the MTT assay. While 10 mM ampicillin-loaded WH showed no significant difference in metabolic activity at both 24 and 48 hours, 25 mM ampicillin-loaded WH exhibited a slight reduction in metabolic activity at 24 hours, which normalized by 48 hours. Additionally, we assessed osteogenic potential and showed a significant increase in RunX2 expression with ampicillin-loaded WH, indicating sustained osteogenic properties. Conclusions Our study underscores the promising biocompatibility of WH particles by retaining their osteogenic properties even when, loaded with ampicillin, offering a potential avenue for future bone regeneration strategies.
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.