4.3 Article

Enhanced mechanical strength and biocompatibility of electrospun polycaprolactone-gelatin scaffold with surface deposited nano-hydroxyapatite

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.02.003

关键词

Electrospinning; Biocompatibility; Alternate soaking; Cell proliferation; Alkaline phosphatase activity

资金

  1. DST through FIST
  2. DST through Nanomission
  3. DST through IRPHA
  4. DST through SERC
  5. DST through Indo-Spain schemes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study for the first time, we compared physico-chemical and biological properties of polycaprolactone-gelatin-hydroxyapatite scaffolds of two types: one in which the nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HA) was deposited on the surface of electrospun polycaprolactone-gelatin (PCG) fibers via alternate soaking process (PCG-HA(AS)) and other in which hydroxyapatite (HA) powders were blended in electrospinning solution of PCG (PCG-HA(B)). The microstructure of fibers was examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) which showed n-HA particles on the surface of the PCG-HA(AS) scaffold and embedded HA particles in the interior of the PCG-HA(B) fibers. PCG-HA(AS) fibers exhibited the better Young's moduli and tensile strength as compared to PCG-HA(B) fibers. Biological properties such as cell proliferation, cell attachment and alkaline phosphatase activity (ALP) were determined by growing human osteosarcoma cells (MG-63) over the scaffolds. Cell proliferation and confocal results clearly indicated that the presence of hydroxyapatite on the surface of the PCG-HA(AS) scaffold promoted better cellular adhesion and proliferation as compared to PCG-HA(B) scaffold. ALP activity was also observed better in alternate soaked PCG scaffold as compared to PCG-HA(B) scaffold. Mechanical strength and biological properties clearly demonstrate that surface deposited HA scaffold prepared by alternate soaking method may find application in bone tissue engineering. (C) 2013 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