4.7 Article

Fibrous scaffolds of Ag/Fe co-doped hydroxyapatite encapsulated into polycaprolactone: Morphology, mechanical and in vitro cell adhesion

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120557

关键词

Wound healing; Fiber; Hydroxyapatite; Silver; Cell viability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A scaffold matrix was developed for wound healing, consisting of hydroxyapatite encapsulated polycaprolactone electrospun scaffolds doped with varying levels of Ag ions. The scaffolds exhibited a cross-linked network structure and showed promising properties for promoting cell attachment and antibacterial activity.
The development of a scaffold matrix to promote wound healing is a critical requirement to improve the health care system. For this purpose, electrospun scaffolds of polycaprolactone (PCL) have been encapsulated with hydroxyapatite (HAP) doped with different contributions Ag ions. The obtained scaffolds have been investigated by XRD, FTIR and FESEM. It was shown that scaffolds were configured as cross-linked network with diameters around 0.6, 0.9, 2.1, and 2.5 mu m for 0.0Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL, 0.4Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL, 0.6Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL, and 0.8Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL, respectively. Additionally, the composition of 0.8Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL exhibited the highest roughness average of 34 nm, while the inorganic root of co-dopant HAP recorded 44.8 nm. The mechanical properties have been investigated and showed that the maximum strain at break was about 129.31 +/- 5.4% at no additional Ag ions, and reached its lowest value of 103.02 +/- 3.5% at 0.2Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL. On the other hand, cell viability increased from 94.74 +/- 4 to 98.9 +/- 4% for 0.0Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL and 0.6Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL, respectively. Further, the antibacterial activity was investigated and exhibited that the inhibition zones of E. coli increased from 0.0 at 0.0Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL to 7.5 +/- 1.3 mm for 0.8Ag/Fe-HAP@PCL. Moreover, the in vitro cell attachment showed that fibroblast cells proliferated and spread on the fibers' surface and through scaffolds' porosity.

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

4.7
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