Influence of sodium oxide content on bioactive glass properties

  • K. E. Wallace
  • R. G. Hill
  • J. T. Pembroke
  • C. J. Brown
  • P. V. Hatton


The rate of in vivo degradation and level of bioactivity of bioactive glasses are composition dependent [1]. By altering bioactive glass composition, the rate of resorption can be controlled. The network connectivity of a glass can be used to predict various physical properties of the glass including its solubility and, hence, its bioactivity [2]. Glass solubility increases as network connectivity is reduced. Glasses in the soda-lime phosphosilicate system were studied. The initial choice of composition was based on phosphate content and low network connectivity. A systematic substitution of calcium oxide for sodium oxide on a molar basis was made in order to examine the influence of sodium oxide content on the glass properties while keeping the network connectivity constant. The glass transition temperature and the peak crystallization temperature were seen to decrease linearly with increasing sodium oxide content. Thermal expansion coefficient and glass density were also seen to be related to sodium oxide content. Preliminary in vitro biocompatibility studies revealed that the glasses of higher sodium oxide content were associated with a cytotoxic response. The measurement of media pH indicated that this cytotoxic effect was due to ion exchange reactions at the glass surface.


Glass Transition Temperature Network Connectivity Bioactive Glass Phosphate Content Peak Crystallization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Y. Ebisawa, T. Kokubo, K. Ohura and T. Yamamuro, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 1 (1990) 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. G. Hill, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 15 (1996) 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. F. Williams, Mater. Sci. Tech. 3 (1987) 797.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. L. Hench in “Biomaterials science. An introduction to materials in medicine”, edited by B. D. Ratner, A. S. Hoffman, F. J. Schoen and J. E. Lemons (Academic Press, San Diego, 1996) p. 73.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O. H. Anderson, G. Liu, K. Kangasniemi and J. Juhanoja, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 3 (1992) 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. L. Hench, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 74 (1991) 1487.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. H. Ray in “Inorganic polymers” (Academic Press, London, (1978) p. 5.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. W. G. Lockyer, D. Holland and R. Dupree, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 188 (1995) 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Z. Strnad, Biomaterials 13 (1992) 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O. H. Anderson, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 3 (1992) 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. H. Ray in “Inorganic polymers” (Academic Press, London, (1978) p. 91.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Ducheyne, A. El-Ghannam and I. Shapiro, US Patent No. 5 676 720 (1997).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. A. Di Marzio and J. H. Gibbs, Polym. Sci. 40 (1959) 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. El-Ghannam, P. Ducheyne and I. M. Shapiro, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 29 (1995)359.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. E. Wallace
    • 1
  • R. G. Hill
    • 1
  • J. T. Pembroke
    • 2
  • C. J. Brown
    • 3
  • P. V. Hatton
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and TechnologyUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Environmental ScienceUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  3. 3.Department of Oral SurgerySchool of Clinical Dentistry, University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  4. 4.Department of Restorative DentistrySchool of Clinical Dentistry, University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations