4.6 Article

Tailoring hierarchical meso- macroporous 3D scaffolds: from nano to macro

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY B
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 49-58

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3tb21307b

关键词

-

资金

  1. Comunidad de Madrid [S2009/MAT-1472]
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN) [MAT2012-35556, CS2010-11384]
  3. MICINN through the FPI fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bone tissue regeneration requires the use of 3D scaffolds which mimic the architecture of the natural extracellular matrix, creating an adequate microenvironment for bone cell growth. Such 3D scaffolds need surface properties suitable for biological recognition in the early stage of cell adhesion, necessary to ensure complete cell colonization, retained cell functionality, and subsequently bone regeneration. Herein, hierarchical 3D scaffolds based on new hydroxyapatite/mesoporous glass nanocomposite bioceramic (MGHA) exhibiting different scales of porosity have been synthesized. These 3D scaffolds possess: (i) highly ordered mesopores with diameters of 10 nm; (ii) macropores with diameters in the 30-80 mu m range with interconnections of 1-10 mu m; and (iii) large macropores of ca. 500 mu m. To improve their surface properties, 3D scaffolds were modified through direct functionalization with amine propyl groups, which notably improve preosteoblast adhesion, proliferation (2.3 fold), differentiation (4.8 fold) and further cell colonization of these scaffolds. The observed enhancement can be related to these amine groups which favour early adhesion, e. g., based on nonspecific protein adsorption as was demonstrated by ellipsometry. These results suggest that the combination of hierarchical structure design and amine surface modification of hydroxyapatite/mesoporous nanocomposite scaffolds yields a double increase in cell proliferation, as well as a quadruple increase in cell differentiation, demonstrating the potential of these nanocomposite materials for bone tissue regeneration purposes.

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

4.6
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