4.7 Article

Effects of different crosslinking methods on the properties of collagen-calcium phosphate composite materials

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.12.023

Keywords

Collagen; Calcium phosphate; Composite scaffolds

Funding

  1. National Science Centre (NCN, Poland) [UMO-2013/11/B/ST8/04444]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study is the preparation and characterization of porous collagen/calcium phosphates (Col/CaP) composites. Collagen scaffolds with high porosity were prepared by freeze-drying technique. Col/CaP scaffold were created by new method - by deposition of calcium phosphate within collagen matrix in two steps using freeze-drying process before immersing samples in calcium solution. To find the optimal preparative method, we prepared diverse Col/CaP scaffolds using different collagen concentration and various crosslinking method: crosslinking with carbodiimide (EDC/NHS) and dehydrothermal treatment (DHT). This study explores the effect of the different crosslinking method on the properties of scaffolds, such as: microstructure (porosity and density), dissolution, water uptake, mechanical properties and collagenase degradation. The results obtained showed that crosslinking the scaffolds by either EDC/NHS or DHT have good mechanical and morphological properties compatible with their potential application in bone regeneration. The results demonstrated that properties of Col/CaP scaffolds changed significantly with different crosslinking method. However, while EDC/NHS increased the scaffolds' resistance to dissolution and degradation by collagenase, DHT decreased the swelling ratio and resistance to dissolution in PBS solution. Based on our study, 2% collagen concentration and EDC/NHS as crosslinking reagent are recommended to design the scaffold for use in bone engineering. (C) 2014 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