4.8 Article

Characterization of mineralized collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone regeneration

Journal

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 490-503

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.01.003

Keywords

mineralized scaffolds; collagen; mechanical characterization; microstructural characterization; cellular solids model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mineralized collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds designed for bone regeneration have been synthesized via triple co-precipitation in the absence of a titrant phase. Here, we characterize the microstructural and mechanical properties of these newly developed scaffolds with 50 and 75 wt.% mineral content. The 50 wt.% scaffold had an equiaxed pore structure with isotropic mechanical properties and a Ca-P-rich mineral phase comprised of brushite; the 75 wt.% scaffold had a bilayer structure with a pore size varying in the through-thickness direction and a mineral phase comprised of 67% brushite and 33 wt.% monetite. The compressive stress-strain response of the scaffolds was characteristic of low-density open-cell foams with distinct linear elastic, collapse plateau and densification regimes. The elastic modulus and strength of individual struts within the scaffolds were measured using an atomic force microscopy cantilevered beam-bending technique and compared with the composite response under indentation and unconfined compression. Cellular solids models, using the measured strut properties, overestimated the overall mechanical properties for the scaffolds; the discrepancy arises from defects such as disconnected pore walls within the scaffold. As the scaffold stiffness and strength decreased with increasing overall mineral content and were less than that of natural, mineralized collagen scaffolds, these micro structural/mechanical relations will be used to further improve scaffold design for bone regeneration applications. (c) 2008 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available