4.7 Article

Fabrication of 3D Printed Poly(lactic acid)/Polycaprolactone Scaffolds Using TGF-1 for Promoting Bone Regeneration

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 13, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym13213731

关键词

bone regeneration; polycaprolactone; poly-lactic acid; three-dimensional printing; transforming growth factor-beta

资金

  1. Tainan Municipal An-Nan Hospital, China Medical University [ANHRF110-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the 3D printed PCL scaffold outperformed the PLA scaffold, showing better physical properties and biocompatibility, and potentially offering stronger osteogenic ability.
Our research was designed to evaluate the effect on bone regeneration with 3-dimensional (3D) printed polylactic acid (PLA) and 3D printed polycaprolactone (PCL) scaffolds, determine the more effective option for enhancing bone regeneration, and offer tentative evidence for further research and clinical application. Employing the 3D printing technique, the PLA and PCL scaffolds showed similar morphologies, as confirmed via scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mechanical strength was significantly higher in the PLA group (63.4 MPa) than in the PCL group (29.1 MPa) (p < 0.01). Average porosity, swelling ratio, and degeneration rate in the PCL scaffold were higher than those in the PLA scaffold. SEM observation after cell coculture showed improved cell attachment and activity in the PCL scaffolds. A functional study revealed the best outcome in the 3D printed PCL-TGF-beta(1) scaffold compared with the 3D printed PCL and the 3D printed PCL-Polydopamine (PDA) scaffold (p < 0.001). As confirmed via SEM, the 3D printed PCL- transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-beta(1)) scaffold also exhibited improved cell adhesion after 6 h of cell coculture. The 3D printed PCL scaffold showed better physical properties and biocompatibility than the 3D printed PLA scaffold. Based on the data of TGF-beta(1), this study confirms that the 3D printed PCL scaffold may offer stronger osteogenesis.

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