4.3 Article

Mussel-inspired porous SiO2 scaffolds with improved mineralization and cytocompatibility for drug delivery and bone tissue engineering

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY
卷 21, 期 45, 页码 18300-18307

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c1jm12770e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [30730034]
  2. QUT
  3. SIC-CAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porous SiO2 scaffolds with mesopore structure (named as MS scaffolds) have been proposed as suitable for bone tissue engineering due to their excellent drug-delivery ability; however, the mineralization and cytocompatibility of MS scaffolds are far from optimal for bone tissue engineering, and it is also unclear how the delivery of drugs from MS scaffolds affects osteoblastic cells. The aims of the present study were to improve the mineralization and cytocompatibility of MS scaffolds by coating mussel-inspired polydopamine on the pore walls of scaffolds. The effects of polydopamine modification on MS scaffolds were investigated with respect to apatite mineralization and the attachment, proliferation and differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs), as was the release profile of the drug dexamethasone (DEX). Our results show that polydopamine can readily coat the pore walls of MS scaffolds and that polydopamine-modified MS scaffolds have a significantly improved apatite-mineralization ability as well as better attachment and proliferation of BMSCs in the scaffolds, compared to controls. Polydopamine modification did not alter the release profile of DEX from MS scaffolds but the sustained delivery of DEX significantly improved alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity of BMSCs in the scaffolds. These results suggest that polydopamine modification is a viable option to enhance the bioactivity of bone tissue engineering scaffolds and, further, that DEX-loaded polydopamine MS scaffolds have potential uses as a release system to enhance the osteogenic properties of bone tissue engineering applications.

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

4.3
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