| Literature DB >> 25276834 |
M Prabhu1, S Ruby Priscilla1, K Kavitha1, P Manivasakan1, V Rajendran1, P Kulandaivelu2.
Abstract
Silica andEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25276834 PMCID: PMC4170829 DOI: 10.1155/2014/950691
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1XRD pattern of prepared bioactive glass nanocomposites.
Figure 2FTIR spectra of bioactive glass nanocomposites.
Analysis of FTIR spectra of the bioactive glass nanoparticles.
| Wavenumbers (cm−1) | Peak assignments | References | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | ||||||
| NBG | SNBG | NNBG | NBG | SNBG | NNBG | ||
| 473 | 473 | — | — | — | — | Si–O–Si stretching | [ |
| 566 | 566 | 566 | 570 | 570 | 570 | PO3 −2 vibration band | [ |
| 606 | 606 | 606 | 607 | 607 | 607 | –P=O bending band, PO4 −3 vibration band | [ |
| 804 | 804 | 804 | 807 | 807 | 807 | Symmetric Si–O–Si stretching in SiO4 tetrahedron | [ |
| — | — | — | 876 | 876 | 876 | C–O stretching vibration band in CO3 2− | [ |
| 999 | 999 | 999 | 1084 | 1084 | 1084 | Asymmetric Si–O–S stretching in SiO4 tetrahedron | [ |
| 1384 | 1384 | 1384 | — | — | — | O–H bending vibration band | [ |
| — | — | — | 1420 | 1420 | 1420 | C–O stretching vibration band in CO3 2− | [ |
| — | — | — | 1472 | 1472 | 1472 | C–O stretching vibration band in CO3 2− | [ |
| 1641 | 1641 | 1641 | 1647 | 1647 | 1647 | O–H bending (molecular water) | [ |
Figure 3TEM images of prepared bioactive glass nanoparticles.
Figure 4SEM images of silver and neem doped nanobioactive glass particles before and after in vitro studies.
Compositions of prepared bioactive glass nanoparticles through XRF analysis.
| Sample code | Designed (wt%) | Experimental (wt%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SiO2 | CaO | P2O5 | Ag2O | Neem powder | SiO2 | CaO | P2O5 | Ag2O | |
| BG | 58 | 33 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 59.23 | 36.440 | 4.33 | 0 |
| SNBG | 58 | 32 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 63.58 | 30.67 | 4.72 | 0.97 |
| NNBG | 58 | 32 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 58.07 | 36.54 | 5.31 | 0 |
Figure 5BET plot of prepared bioactive glass nanoparticles.
Figure 6pH value as a function of soaking period in SBF.
Figure 7Weight loss percentage of bioactive glass samples after 21 days of incubation in SBF.
Figure 8XRD pattern of bioactive glass nanoparticles after in vitro studies.
Figure 9FTIR spectra of bioactive glass nanoparticles after in vitro studies.
Elemental analysis of NBG, SNBG, and NNBG sample surfaces after immersion in SBF by XRF.
| Samples | After immersion in SBF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ca (wt%) | P (wt%) | Ca/P | |
| NBG | 38.96 | 18.55 | 2.10 |
| SNBG | 36.74 | 22.82 | 1.60 |
| NNBG | 34.28 | 27.86 | 1.23 |
Antimicrobial effect of bioactive glass nanocomposites against clinical pathogens.
| Serial number | Organisms | Zone of inhibition (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NBG | SNBG | NNBG | ||
| 1 |
| — | 8 | 23 |
| 2 |
| — | 7 | 23 |
Figure 10Morphological responses of AGS cell lines exposed to different concentrations of nanocomposites.
Figure 11Cell viability percentage of AGS cells treated with nanobioactive glass samples.