4.8 Article

Avoiding artefacts in MicroCT imaging of collagen scaffolds: Effect of phosphotungstic acid (PTA)-staining and crosslink density

期刊

BIOACTIVE MATERIALS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 210-219

出版社

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.06.012

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/N019938/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

X-ray micro-computed tomography (mu-CT) is used to visualize the structure of hydrated collagen scaffolds by using phosphotungstic acid (PTA) as a contrast agent. The choice of processing and staining conditions is crucial for accurate visualization of crosslinked samples, while non-crosslinked or lightly crosslinked samples may cause structural artifacts.
X-ray micro-computed tomography (mu-CT) can be used to provide both qualitative and quantitative information on the structure of three-dimensional (3D) bioactive scaffolds. When performed in a dry state, mu-CT accurately reflects the structure of collagen-based scaffolds, but imaging in a wet state offers challenges with radiolucency. Here we have used phosphotungstic acid (PTA) as a contrast agent to visualise fully hydrated collagen scaffolds in a physiologically relevant environment. A systematic investigation was performed to understand the effects of PTA on the results of mu-CT imaging by varying sample processing variables such as crosslinking density, hydration medium and staining duration. Immersing samples in 0.3% PTA solution overnight completely stained the samples and the treatment provided a successful route for mu-CT analysis of crosslinked samples. However, significant structural artefacts were observed for samples which were either non-crosslinked or had low levels of crosslinking, which had a heterogeneous interior architecture with collapsed pores at the scaffold periphery. This work highlights the importance of optimising the choice of processing and staining conditions to ensure accurate visualisation for hydrated 3D collagen scaffolds in an aqueous medium.

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

4.8
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