4.5 Article

Does the tissue engineering architecture of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) scaffold affects cell-material interactions?

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 100A, Issue 7, Pages 1907-1918

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34131

Keywords

poly(3-hydroxybutyrate); electrospinning; salt leaching; attachment; proliferation

Funding

  1. Royan Institute
  2. Isfahan University of Technology
  3. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A critical element in tissue engineering involves the fabrication of a three-dimensional scaffold. The scaffold provides a space for new tissue formation, supports cellular ingrowth, and proliferation and mimics many roles of the extracellular matrix. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) (PHB) is the most thoroughly investigated member of the polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) family that has various degrees of biocompatibility and biodegradability for tissue engineering applications. In this study, we fabricated PHB scaffolds by utilizing electrospinning and salt-leaching procedures. The behavior of monkey epithelial kidney cells (Vero) and mouse mesenchymal stem cells (mMSCs) on these scaffolds was compared by the MTS assay and scanning electron microscopy. Additionally, this study investigated the mechanical and physical properties of these scaffolds by measuring tensile strength and modulus, dynamic contact angle and porosity. According to our results, the salt-leached scaffolds showed more wettability and permeability, but inferior mechanical properties when compared with nanofibrous scaffolds. In terms of cell response, salt-leached scaffolds showed enhanced Vero cell proliferation, whereas both scaffolds responded similarly in the case of mMSCs proliferation. In brief, nanofibrous scaffolds can be a better substrate for cell attachment and morphology. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 2012.

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