4.5 Article

Effect of doping in carbon nanotubes on the viability of biomimetic chitosan-carbon nanotubes-hydroxyapatite scaffolds

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 102, Issue 10, Pages 3341-3351

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34893

Keywords

chitosan; carbon nanotubes; hydroxyapatite; scaffold; tissue engineering

Funding

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT), Mexico
  2. ICMM-CSIC [MAT2011-25329, MAT2012-3481]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work describes the preparation and characterization of biomimetic chitosan/multiwall carbon nanotubes/nano-hydroxyapatite (CTS/MWCNT/nHAp) scaffolds and their viability for bone tissue engineering applications. The cryogenic process ice segregation-induced self-assembly (ISISA) was used to fabricate 3D biomimetic CTS scaffolds. Proper combination of cryogenics, freeze-drying, nature and molecular ratio of solutes give rise to 3D porous interconnected scaffolds with clusters of nHAp distributed along the scaffold surface. The effect of doping in CNT (e. g. with oxygen and nitrogen atoms) on cell viability was tested. Under the same processing conditions, pore size was in the range of 20-150 mu m and irrespective on the type of CNT. Studies on cell viability with scaffolds were carried out using human cells from periosteum biopsy. Prior to cell seeding, the immunophenotype of mesenchymal periosteum or periosteum-derived stem cells (MSCs-PCs) was characterized by flow cytometric analysis using fluorescence-activated and characteristic cell surface markers for MSCs-PCs. The characterized MSCs-PCs maintained their periosteal potential in cell cultures until the 2nd passage from primary cell culture. Thus, the biomimetic CTS/MWCNT/nHAp scaffolds demonstrated good biocompatibility and cell viability in all cases such that it can be considered as promising biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. (C) 2013 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