4.5 Article

In vitro cytotoxicity of single-walled carbon nanotube/biodegradable polymer nanocomposites

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 86A, Issue 3, Pages 813-823

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31671

Keywords

cytotoxicity; single-walled carbon nanotube; biodegradable polymer; nanocomposite; bone tissue engineering

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR42639] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE15164] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R01AR042639] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL &CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R01DE015164] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Injectable nanocomposites made of biodegradable poly(propylene fumarate) and the crosslinking agent propylene fumarate-diacrylate as well as each of three forms of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) were evaluated for their in vitro cytotoxicity. Unreacted components, crosslinked networks, and degradation products of the nanocomposites were investigated for their effects on cell viability using a fibroblast cell line in vitro. The results did not reveal any in vitro cytotoxicity for purified SWNTs, SWNTs functionalized with 4-tert-butylphenylene, and ultra-short SWNTs at 1100 mu g/mL concentrations. Moreover, nearly 100% cell viability was observed on all crosslinked nanocomposites and cell attachment on their surfaces was comparable with that on tissue culture polystyrene. The degradation products of the nanocomposites displayed a dose-dependent adverse effect on cells, which was partially due to increased osmolarity by the conditions of accelerated degradation and could be overcome at diluted concentrations. These results demonstrate that all three tested nanocomposites have favorable cytocompatibility for potential use as scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. (c) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available