四种生物陶瓷材料的生物活性比较  

The bioactive comparason of four bioceramics

作　　者：丁宁[1] 牛景路[1] 母瑞虹[1] 赵谌[1] 

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学附属北京口腔医院,100050

出　　处：《北京口腔医学》2005年第1期26-27,共2页Beijing Journal of Stomatology

基　　金：北京市自然科学基金资助项目(2982012)

摘　　要：目的　观察几种生物陶瓷不同周期的成骨效应和材料的变化,比较其生物活性。方法　采用动物骨 内植入模型,对羟磷灰石陶瓷、珊瑚羟磷灰石、生物活性玻璃陶瓷、氧化锆陶瓷的成骨作用进行组织学观察。结果 术后14天以上4种生物陶瓷表面均有新生骨覆盖,但180天后羟磷灰石陶瓷、珊瑚羟磷灰石材料内部有新生骨生 成,后者的成骨量大于前者;生物活性玻璃陶瓷表面开始出现降解,氧化锆陶瓷表面无明显的变化。结论　4种生 物陶瓷均具有良好的生物相容性,珊瑚羟磷灰石生物活性最好,而氧化锆陶瓷最差。Objective To compare the bioactivity of four bioceramics when they were implanted into the bone and observe the changes of these bioceramics . Methods The ability of bone formation of these four materials was observed histologically after they were implanted into the bone of rats. Results The new bones were found on the surface of the materials 14 days after operation ,but the new bone appeared in inner of these bioceramics 180 days after implantation. The amount of bone found in coral HA was larger than in HA. The surface of Bio-glass ceramic began to decompose,but the surface of Zirconium Oxide bioceremics did not change markedly.Conclusion All of the four bioceramics have good biocompatibility .The bioactivity of the coral HA is the best and of Zirconium Oxide bioceremic is the worst.

关 键 词：羟磷灰石 生物活性玻璃 新生骨 生物陶瓷材料 珊瑚 成骨效应 植入 性比 成骨作用 变化 

分 类 号：R783.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]