The microstructural evaluation of the samples was carried out by SEM/EDS.
Compressibility evaluation of the samples revealed poor compressibility of XMet while CryMet was directly compressible.
Incomplete block design was chosen by the panelists for the evaluation of the samples.
The validity of the SECM measurements was supported by topographical analysis and optical evaluation of the samples after the measurements.
The in vivo evaluation of the samples showed that all the cell/glass constructs accelerated bone healing process in comparison with blank controls.
Microstructural evaluation of the samples was conducted by optical microscopy and field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) of the cross-sections of surface composite layers.
Specific discrete variables are applied to realize the standardization design in the optimization process, in which a Surrogate Genetic Coding Algorithm (SGCA) is introduced, and a special check module is used to get rid of repeated fitness evaluation of the samples.
EB made the histopathological evaluation of the samples and wrote the results.
The photocatalytic evaluation of the samples was carried out by dispersing 0.01 g of the product for the degradation of 100 ml MO solution (10 mg/l).
We thank Prof. Jahn Martin Nesland at Division of Pathology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital for performing the initial histopathological evaluation of the samples.
