| Literature DB >> 29744460 |
Rajan Choudhary1, Ankita Chatterjee2, Senthil Kumar Venkatraman1, Sivasankar Koppala3, Jayanthi Abraham2, Sasikumar Swamiappan1.
Abstract
In the current work, forsterite samples with different surface area were investigated for its antibacterial activity. Dissolution studies show that the lower degradation of forsterite compared to other silicate bioceramics, which is a desirable property for repairing bone defects. Forsterite scaffold shows superior compressive strength than the cortical bone after immersion in simulated body fluid. Bactericidal tests indicate that the forsterite had inhibition effect on the growth of clinical bacterial isolates. Forsterite may be a suitable candidate material for load bearing applications with enhanced mechanical properties and lower degradation rate.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial; Bone; Dissolution; Magnesium silicate; Mechanical stability
Year: 2018 PMID: 29744460 PMCID: PMC5935788 DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2018.03.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioact Mater ISSN: 2452-199X
Fig. 1XRD pattern of forsterite samples after sintering.
Fig. 2SEM micrographs of FG (a), FU (c) and EDX pattern of FG (b), FU (d) samples.
Fig. 3Degradation behavior (a) compressive strength (b) and Young's modulus (c) of forsterite samples after 30 days of immersion in SBF.
Mechanical properties of bone and their comparison with forsterite bioceramics.
| Samples | Mechanical Properties | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Compressive strength (MPa) | Young's modulus (GPa) | ||
| Cancellous Bone [ | 0.1–16 | 0.05–0.5 | |
| Cortical Bone [ | 130–200 | 7–30 | |
| Forsterite | FU | 124 ± 9.0 | 4.6 ± 0.1 |
| FG | 201 ± 15 | 4.8 ± 0.1 | |
Fig. 4Percentage inhibition of different clinical pathogens by pure forsterite (FG and FU).
Percentage inhibition of the clinical pathogens by FG and FU.
| Pathogens | Percentage of Inhibition by FG | Percentage of Inhibition by FU | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentrations (mg/mL) | Concentrations (mg/mL) | ||||||
| 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | ||
| GRAM NEGATIVE STRAINS | 48.4 ± 0.1 | 65.9 ± 0.1 | 74.2 ± 0.1 | 31.3 ± 0.4 | 56.1 ± 0.2 | 64.3 ± 0.1 | |
| 36.2 ± 0.04 | 60.4 | 70.1 ± 0.2 | 21.6 ± 0.4 | 54.6 ± 0.3 | 61.3 ± 0.1 | ||
| 38.3 ± 0.3 | 63.3 | 71.7 ± 0.2 | 19.5 ± 0.4 | 49.8 ± 0.1 | 59.2 ± 0.1 | ||
| 38.1 ± 0.1 | 54.4 ± 0.1 | 66.6 ± 0.1 | 19.3 ± 0.1 | 51.9 ± 0.1 | 62.6 ± 0.1 | ||
| 37 ± 0.1 | 50.3 ± 0.1 | 65.7 ± 0.1 | 15.1 ± 0.2 | 50.3 ± 0.1 | 64.6 ± 0.2 | ||
| 26.4 ± 0.1 | 59.1 ± 0.2 | 70.7 ± 0.2 | 18.5 ± 0.1 | 47.8 ± 0.1 | 64.4 ± 0.1 | ||
| 29 ± 0.2 | 61.3 ± 0.1 | 72.0 ± 0.1 | 23.1 ± 0.1 | 42.1 ± 0.2 | 57.5 ± 0.1 | ||
| GRAM POSITIVE STRAINS | 51.6 ± 0.4 | 73.7 ± 0.2 | 75.1 ± 0.1 | 57.1 ± 0.04 | 71.4 ± 0.04 | 80.2 ± 0.04 | |
| 52.8 ± 0.2 | 73.9 ± 0.1 | 75.6 ± 0.1 | 58.3 ± 0.1 | 73.1 ± 0.04 | 81 ± 0.04 | ||
Changes in pH after 24 h incubation for Escherichia coli.
| Samples | Control | 0.5 mg/mL | 1 mg/mL | 2 mg/mL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 6.8 | 7 | 7.2 | 7.5 |
| FU | 6.8 | 7 | 7.1 | 7.3 |
Changes in pH after 24 h incubation for Staphylococcus aureus.
| Samples | Control | 0.5 mg/mL | 1 mg/mL | 2 mg/mL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 6.8 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.4 |
| FU | 6.8 | 7 | 7.2 | 7.3 |
Fig. 5Growth of S. aureus on (a) control, (b) FG 2 mg/mL, (c) FU 2 mg/mL; The growth of E. Coli on (d) control, (e) FG 2 mg/mL and (f) FU 2 mg/mL in agar medium.
Fig. 6SEM micrographs of forsterite samples after antibacterial studies; Control E. coli (a), FG E. coli (b), FU E. coli (c), Control S. aureus (d), FG S. aureus (e), FU S. aureus (f).