4.7 Article

Rheological, biocompatibility and osteogenesis assessment of fish collagen scaffold for bone tissue engineering

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.05.067

Keywords

Collagen scaffold; Chitosan; Hydroxyapatite; Osteogenesis; Biocompatibility

Funding

  1. Shanghai High Technology Research and Development Program [14431906000, 15410722500]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present investigation, an attempt was made to find an alternative to mammalian collagen with better osteogenesis ability. Three types of collagen scaffolds - collagen, collagen-chitosan (C-CH), and collagen-hydroxyapatite (C-HA) - were prepared from the cartilage of Blue shark and investigated for their physico-functional and mechanical properties in relation to biocompatibility and osteogenesis. C-CH scaffold was superior with pH 4.5-4.9 and viscosity 9.7-10.9 cP. Notably, addition of chitosan and HA (hydroxyapatite) improved the stiffness (11-23 MPa) and degradation rate but lowered the water binding capacity and porosity of the scaffold. Interestingly, C-CH scaffolds remained for 3 days before complete in-vitro biodegradation. The decreased amount of viable T-cells and higher level of FAS/APO-1 were substantiated the biocompatibility properties of prepared collagen scaffolds. Osteogenesis study revealed that the addition of CH and HA in both fish and mammalian collagen scaffolds could efficiently promote osteoblast cell formation. The ALP activity was significantly high in C-HA scaffold-treated osteoblast cells, which suggests an enhanced bone-healing process. Therefore, the present study concludes that the composite scaffolds prepared from fish collagen with higher stiffness, lower biodegradation rate, better biocompatible, and osteogenesis properties were suitable biomaterial for a bone tissue engineering application as an alternative to mammalian collagen scaffolds. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available