The Experts below are selected from a list of 527982 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yves Marois - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
hemocompatibility biocompatibility inflammatory and in Vivo Studies of primary reference materials low density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane a review
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2001Co-Authors: Marie Claire Belanger, Yves MaroisAbstract:in 1984, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polymethylsiloxane (PDMS), two primary reference materials (PRM), were made available by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute (NHLBI) as discriminatory tools for the validation of standardized and novel in vitro and in Vivo tests in the evaluation of biomaterials. This article reviews the results and conclusions obtained by several Studies investigating the hemocompatibility, in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in Vivo tissue reactions of these two reference materials. Variable results obtained with LDPE and PDMS in ex Vivo hemocompatibility Studies were attributed to the type of animal model used, the flow velocity of the circulating blood, the time of exposure, and the methodology used to measure blood cell adhesion or activation at the surface of the materials. in contrast, both the LDPE and PDMS appeared to be suitable reference materials when used in in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in Vivo Studies. However, caution must be taken when interpreting the results, because gamma sterilization of these two materials as well as their origin (for example PDMS) are two critically important factors. in conclusion, we see a definite need for standardized hemocompatible parameters and better high-quality hemocompatibility Studies on PRM. This review also suggests other materials as potential PRM candidates, namely, Biomer® and intramedic™ polyethylene. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, inc. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater) 58: 467–477, 2001
-
hemocompatibility biocompatibility inflammatory and in Vivo Studies of primary reference materials low density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane a review
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2001Co-Authors: Marie Claire Belanger, Yves MaroisAbstract:in 1984, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polymethylsiloxane (PDMS), two primary reference materials (PRM), were made available by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute (NHLBI) as discriminatory tools for the validation of standardized and novel in vitro and in Vivo tests in the evaluation of biomaterials. This article reviews the results and conclusions obtained by several Studies investigating the hemocompatibility, in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in Vivo tissue reactions of these two reference materials. Variable results obtained with LDPE and PDMS in ex Vivo hemocompatibility Studies were attributed to the type of animal model used, the flow velocity of the circulating blood, the time of exposure, and the methodology used to measure blood cell adhesion or activation at the surface of the materials. in contrast, both the LDPE and PDMS appeared to be suitable reference materials when used in in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in Vivo Studies. However, caution must be taken when interpreting the results, because gamma sterilization of these two materials as well as their origin (for example PDMS) are two critically important factors. in conclusion, we see a definite need for standardized hemocompatible parameters and better high-quality hemocompatibility Studies on PRM. This review also suggests other materials as potential PRM candidates, namely, Biomer and intramedic polyethylene.
Marie Claire Belanger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
hemocompatibility biocompatibility inflammatory and in Vivo Studies of primary reference materials low density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane a review
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2001Co-Authors: Marie Claire Belanger, Yves MaroisAbstract:in 1984, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polymethylsiloxane (PDMS), two primary reference materials (PRM), were made available by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute (NHLBI) as discriminatory tools for the validation of standardized and novel in vitro and in Vivo tests in the evaluation of biomaterials. This article reviews the results and conclusions obtained by several Studies investigating the hemocompatibility, in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in Vivo tissue reactions of these two reference materials. Variable results obtained with LDPE and PDMS in ex Vivo hemocompatibility Studies were attributed to the type of animal model used, the flow velocity of the circulating blood, the time of exposure, and the methodology used to measure blood cell adhesion or activation at the surface of the materials. in contrast, both the LDPE and PDMS appeared to be suitable reference materials when used in in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in Vivo Studies. However, caution must be taken when interpreting the results, because gamma sterilization of these two materials as well as their origin (for example PDMS) are two critically important factors. in conclusion, we see a definite need for standardized hemocompatible parameters and better high-quality hemocompatibility Studies on PRM. This review also suggests other materials as potential PRM candidates, namely, Biomer® and intramedic™ polyethylene. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, inc. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater) 58: 467–477, 2001
-
hemocompatibility biocompatibility inflammatory and in Vivo Studies of primary reference materials low density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane a review
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2001Co-Authors: Marie Claire Belanger, Yves MaroisAbstract:in 1984, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polymethylsiloxane (PDMS), two primary reference materials (PRM), were made available by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute (NHLBI) as discriminatory tools for the validation of standardized and novel in vitro and in Vivo tests in the evaluation of biomaterials. This article reviews the results and conclusions obtained by several Studies investigating the hemocompatibility, in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in Vivo tissue reactions of these two reference materials. Variable results obtained with LDPE and PDMS in ex Vivo hemocompatibility Studies were attributed to the type of animal model used, the flow velocity of the circulating blood, the time of exposure, and the methodology used to measure blood cell adhesion or activation at the surface of the materials. in contrast, both the LDPE and PDMS appeared to be suitable reference materials when used in in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in Vivo Studies. However, caution must be taken when interpreting the results, because gamma sterilization of these two materials as well as their origin (for example PDMS) are two critically important factors. in conclusion, we see a definite need for standardized hemocompatible parameters and better high-quality hemocompatibility Studies on PRM. This review also suggests other materials as potential PRM candidates, namely, Biomer and intramedic polyethylene.
Wei Shicheng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: in vitro and in Vivo Studies
international journal of nanomedicine, 2012Co-Authors: Wu Xiaomian, Liu Xiaochen, Wei Jie, Ma Jian, Deng Feng, Wei ShichengAbstract:Background: Compared with titanium (Ti) and other metal implant materials, poly(ether-ether ketone) (PEEK) shows outstanding biomechanical properties. A number of Studies have also reported attractive bioactivity for nano-TiO2 (n-TiO2). Methods: in this study, n-TiO2/PEEK nanocomposites were prepared, taking advantage of the unique properties of both PEEK polymer and n-TiO2. The in vitro and in Vivo bioactivity of these nanocomposites was assessed against a PEEK polymer control. The effect of surface morphology or roughness on the bioactivity of the n-TiO2/PEEK nanocomposites was also studied. n-TiO2/PEEK was successfully fabricated and cut into disks for physical and chemical characterization and in vitro Studies, and prepared as cylindrical implants for in Vivo Studies. Their presence on the surface and dispersion in the composites was observed and analyzed by scanning and transmission electron microscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Results: Bioactivity evaluation of the nanocomposites revealed that pseudopods of osteoblasts preferred to anchor at areas where n-TiO2 was present on the surface. in a cell attachment test, smooth PEEK showed the lowest optical density value (0.56 +/- 0.07) while rough n-TiO2/PEEK exhibited the highest optical density value (1.21 +/- 0.34, P < 0.05). in in Vivo Studies, the percent bone volume value of n-TiO2/PEEK was approximately twice as large as that of PEEK (P < 0.05). Vivid three-dimensional and histologic images of the newly generated bone on the implants further supported our test results. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that n-TiO2 significantly improves the bioactivity of PEEK, especially if it has a rough composite surface. A n-TiO2/PEEK composite with a rough surface could be a novel alternative implant material for orthopedic and dental applications.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000302723800001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=8e1609b174ce4e31116a60747a720701Nanoscience & NanotechnologyPharmacology & PharmacySCI(E)32ARTICLE1215-1225
Shicheng Wei - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
nano tio2 peek bioactive composite as a bone substitute material in vitro and in Vivo Studies
International Journal of Nanomedicine, 2012Co-Authors: Xiaochen Liu, Jie Wei, Feng Deng, Shicheng WeiAbstract:BACKGROUND Compared with titanium (Ti) and other metal implant materials, poly(ether-ether ketone) (PEEK) shows outstanding biomechanical properties. A number of Studies have also reported attractive bioactivity for nano-TiO(2) (n-TiO(2)). METHODS in this study, n-TiO(2)/PEEK nanocomposites were prepared, taking advantage of the unique properties of both PEEK polymer and n-TiO(2). The in vitro and in Vivo bioactivity of these nanocomposites was assessed against a PEEK polymer control. The effect of surface morphology or roughness on the bioactivity of the n-TiO(2)/PEEK nanocomposites was also studied. n-TiO(2)/PEEK was successfully fabricated and cut into disks for physical and chemical characterization and in vitro Studies, and prepared as cylindrical implants for in Vivo Studies. Their presence on the surface and dispersion in the composites was observed and analyzed by scanning and transmission electron microscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. RESULTS Bioactivity evaluation of the nanocomposites revealed that pseudopods of osteoblasts preferred to anchor at areas where n-TiO(2) was present on the surface. in a cell attachment test, smooth PEEK showed the lowest optical density value (0.56 ± 0.07) while rough n-TiO(2)/PEEK exhibited the highest optical density value (1.21 ± 0.34, P < 0.05). in in Vivo Studies, the percent bone volume value of n-TiO(2)/PEEK was approximately twice as large as that of PEEK (P < 0.05). Vivid three-dimensional and histologic images of the newly generated bone on the implants further supported our test results. CONCLUSION Our study demonstrates that n-TiO(2) significantly improves the bioactivity of PEEK, especially if it has a rough composite surface. A n-TiO(2)/PEEK composite with a rough surface could be a novel alternative implant material for orthopedic and dental applications.
Wu Xiaomian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: in vitro and in Vivo Studies
international journal of nanomedicine, 2012Co-Authors: Wu Xiaomian, Liu Xiaochen, Wei Jie, Ma Jian, Deng Feng, Wei ShichengAbstract:Background: Compared with titanium (Ti) and other metal implant materials, poly(ether-ether ketone) (PEEK) shows outstanding biomechanical properties. A number of Studies have also reported attractive bioactivity for nano-TiO2 (n-TiO2). Methods: in this study, n-TiO2/PEEK nanocomposites were prepared, taking advantage of the unique properties of both PEEK polymer and n-TiO2. The in vitro and in Vivo bioactivity of these nanocomposites was assessed against a PEEK polymer control. The effect of surface morphology or roughness on the bioactivity of the n-TiO2/PEEK nanocomposites was also studied. n-TiO2/PEEK was successfully fabricated and cut into disks for physical and chemical characterization and in vitro Studies, and prepared as cylindrical implants for in Vivo Studies. Their presence on the surface and dispersion in the composites was observed and analyzed by scanning and transmission electron microscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Results: Bioactivity evaluation of the nanocomposites revealed that pseudopods of osteoblasts preferred to anchor at areas where n-TiO2 was present on the surface. in a cell attachment test, smooth PEEK showed the lowest optical density value (0.56 +/- 0.07) while rough n-TiO2/PEEK exhibited the highest optical density value (1.21 +/- 0.34, P < 0.05). in in Vivo Studies, the percent bone volume value of n-TiO2/PEEK was approximately twice as large as that of PEEK (P < 0.05). Vivid three-dimensional and histologic images of the newly generated bone on the implants further supported our test results. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that n-TiO2 significantly improves the bioactivity of PEEK, especially if it has a rough composite surface. A n-TiO2/PEEK composite with a rough surface could be a novel alternative implant material for orthopedic and dental applications.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000302723800001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=8e1609b174ce4e31116a60747a720701Nanoscience & NanotechnologyPharmacology & PharmacySCI(E)32ARTICLE1215-1225
