4.2 Article

Fabrication of three-dimensional nano, micro and micro/nano scaffolds of porous poly(lactic acid) by electrospinning and comparison of cell infiltration by Z-stacking/three-dimensional projection technique

期刊

IET NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 16-25

出版社

INST ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY-IET
DOI: 10.1049/iet-nbt.2011.0028

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India through National Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Initiative
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of electrospun extracellular matrix (ECM)-mimicking nanofibrous scaffolds for tissue engineering is limited by poor cellular infiltration. The authors hypothesised that cell penetration could be enhanced in scaffolds by using a hierarchical structure where nano fibres are combined with micron-scale fibres while preserving the overall scaffold architecture. To assess this, we fabricated electrospun porous poly(lactic acid) (PLA) scaffolds having nanoscale, microscale and combined micro/nano architecture and evaluated the structural characteristics and biological response in detail. Although the bioactivity was intermediate to that for nanofibre and microfibre scaffold, a unique result of this study was that the micro/nano combined fibrous scaffold showed improved cell infiltration and distribution than the nanofibrous scaffold. Although the cells were found to be lining the scaffold periphery in the case of nanofibrous scaffold, micro/nano scaffolds had cells dispersed throughout the scaffold. Further, as expected, the addition of nanoparticles of hydroxyapatite (nHAp) improved the bioactivity, although it did not play a significant role in cell penetration. Thus, this strategy of creating a three-dimensional (3D) micro/nano architecture that would increase the porosity of the fibrous scaffold and thereby improving the cell penetration, can be utilised for the generation of functional tissue engineered constructs in vitro.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据