4.3 Article

Evaluation of electrospun fibrous scaffolds of poly(DL-lactide) and poly(ethylene glycol) for skin tissue engineering

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2009.02.013

关键词

Blending electrospinning; Surface wettability; Degradation pattern; Dimensional shrinkage; HDF viability

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20774075]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NECT-06-0801]
  3. Fok Ying Tong Education Foundation [104032]
  4. Ministry of Education of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study is derived from the innate concerns of electrospun poly(DL-lactide) (PDLLA) fibers as tissue engineering scaffolds: hydrophobic surface, surface erosion and dimensional shrinkage, which are not favorable to trigger the initial adhesion and further growth and population of cells. Blending electrospinning of PDLLA and poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) with different PEG contents was evaluated for optimal tissue engineering scaffolds. The surface hydrophilicity was improved, and the degradation patterns of PDLLA/PEG mats changed from surface erosion to bulk degradation with the increase in PEG contents. The dimensional shrinkage was alleviated through the formation of crystal regions of PEG in the fiber matrix. The PDLLA/PEG fibrous mats were slightly weakened with the increase in the PEG contents, but a significant decrease in the tensile strength could be found for those with PEG contents of over 40%. Human dermal fibroblasts (HDFs) interacted and integrated well with the surrounding fibers containing 20 and 30% PEG, which provided significantly better environment for biological activities of HDFs than electrospun PDLLA mats. It indicated that electrospun mats containing 30% PEG exhibited the most balanced properties, including moderately hydrophilic surface, minimal dimensional changes, adaptable bulk biodegradation pattern and enhancement of cell penetration and growth within fibrous mats. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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