4.5 Article

Alternating block polyurethanes based on PCL and PEG as potential nerve regeneration materials

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34732

关键词

alternating block polyurethanes; poly(epsilon-caprolactone); poly(ethylene glycol); biocompatibility; rat glial cell

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [NSFC 20474001, 31171092, 21274083]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyurethanes with regular and controlled block arrangement, i.e., alternating block polyurethanes (abbreviated as PUCL-alt-PEG) based on poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL-diol) and poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) was prepared via selectively coupling reaction between PCL-diol and diisocyanate end-capped PEG. Chemical structure, molecular weight, distribution, and thermal properties were systematically characterized by FTIR, H-1 NMR, GPC, DSC, and TGA. Hydrophilicity was studied by static contact angle of H2O and CH2I2. Film surface was observed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and atomic force microscopy, and mechanical properties were assessed by universal test machine. Results show that alternating block polyurethanes give higher crystal degree, higher mechanical properties, and more hydrophilic and rougher (deep ravine) surface than their random counterpart, due to regular and controlled structure. Platelet adhesion illustrated that PUCL-alt-PEG has better hemocompatibility and the hemacompatibility was affected significantly by PEG content. Excellent hemocompatibility was obtained with high PEG content. CCK-8 assay and SEM observation revealed much better cell compatibility of fibroblast L929 and rat glial cells on the alternating block polyurethanes than that on random counterpart. Alternating block polyurethane PUC20-a-E4 with optimized composition, mechanical, surface properties, hemacompatibility, and highest cell growth and proliferation was achieved for potential use in nerve regeneration. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 102A: 685-697, 2014.

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

4.5
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