| Literature DB >> 26857951 |
Zongliang Wang1,2, Yu Wang1, Yoshihiro Ito3,4, Peibiao Zhang1, Xuesi Chen1.
Abstract
Composite of nano-hydroxyapatite (Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26857951 PMCID: PMC4808906 DOI: 10.1038/srep20770
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Changes in the bending strength (a), bending modulus (b), impact strength (c) and torsion test (d) of PLLA, n- and g-HAP/PLLA at 0-36 weeks post-surgery.
Statistical analysis of the data shown in Fig. 1a: change in bending strength of n- and g-HAP/PLLA and PLLA samples with time.
| Weeks after implantation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | 12 | 20 | 28 | 36 | |
| g-HAP/PLLA vs. n-HAP/PLLA | n.s | n.s | b | c | a | n.s. |
| g-HAP/PLLA vs. PLLA | n.s | n.s | c | c | c | c |
| n-HAP/PLLA vs. PLLA | n.s | n.s | c | d | c | c |
aWith a significant difference at P < 0.02.
bWith a significant difference at P < 0.01.
cWith a significant difference at P < 0.005.
dWith a significant difference at P < 0.05.
en.s. = not significant.
Statistical analysis of the data shown in Fig. 1b: change in bending modulus of n- and g-HAP/PLLA and PLLA samples with time.
| Weeks after implantation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | 12 | 20 | 28 | 36 | |
| g-HAP/PLLA vs. n-HAP/PLLA | n.s | n.s | n.s | c | n.s | n.s. |
| g-HAP/PLLA vs. PLLA | a | n.s | d | b | c | c |
| n-HAP/PLLA vs. PLLA | n.s | n.s | d | n.s | c | c |
aWith a significant difference at P < 0.02.
bWith a significant difference at P < 0.01.
cWith a significant difference at P < 0.005.
dWith a significant difference at P < 0.05.
en.s. = not significant.
Statistical analysis of the data shown in Fig. 1c: change in impact strength of n- and g-HAP/PLLA and PLLA samples with time.
| Weeks after implantation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | 12 | 20 | 28 | 36 | |
| g-HAP/PLLA vs. n-HAP/PLLA | n.s | n.s | n.s | c | b | c. |
| g-HAP/PLLA vs. PLLA | n.s | c | c | c | c | n.s |
| n-HAP/PLLA vs. PLLA | n.s | n.s | d | c | c | a |
aWith a significant difference at P < 0.02.
bWith a significant difference at P < 0.01.
cWith a significant difference at P < 0.005.
dWith a significant difference at P < 0.05.
en.s. = not significant.
Figure 2Changes in viscosity-average molecular weight (Mv) of PLLA, n- and g-HAP/PLLA at 0–36 weeks post-surgery.
Figure 3Changes in Tg and Tm of PLLA, n- and g-HAP/PLLA at 0–36 weeks post-surgery.
Changes in crystallinity of PLLA, n- and g-HAP/PLLA after in vivo degradation at different time.
| Time (weeks) | PLLA | n-HAP/PLLA | g-HAP/PLLA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 19.5 ± 5.3 | 25.7 ± 5.1 | 22.1 ± 1.2 |
| 4 | 22.6 ± 6.2 | 25.6 ± 9.9 | 26.8 ± 7.5 |
| 12 | 24.4 ± 7.3 | 24.6 ± 7.6 | 29.7 ± 9.3 |
| 20 | 25.5 ± 4.4 | 29.7 ± 7.0 | 33.7 ± 8.7 |
| 28 | 27.1 ± 2.7 | 29.4 ± 8.7 | 33.3 ± 3.0 |
| 36 | 23.6 ± 4.2 | 25.5 ± 0.1 | 27.8 ± 8.0 |
Figure 4Surface ESEM micrographs of the intramuscular implants of PLLA (a), n-HAP/PLLA (b) and g-HAP/PLLA (c) at 0(−1), 4(−2), 12(−3), 20(−4), 28(−5) and 36(−6) weeks post-surgery.
Figure 5Fracture ESEM micrographs of the intramuscular implants of PLLA (a), n-HAP/PLLA (b) and g-HAP/PLLA (c) at 0(−1), 4(−2), 12(−3), 20(−4), 28(−5) and 36(−6) weeks post-surgery.
Figure 6Fracture ESEM high-magnification micrographs of the intramuscular implants of PLLA (a), n-HAP/PLLA (b) and g-HAP/PLLA (c) at 0(−1), 4(−2), 12(−3), 20(−4), 28(−5) and 36(−6) weeks post-surgery.
Figure 7EDX analysis of the g-HAP/PLLA composites with red arrow shown in Fig. 6 at 20 (a), 28 (b) and 36 (c) weeks post-surgery, respectively.