4.6 Article

Study of the in vitro degradation and characterization of the HaCat keratinocytes adherence on electrospun scaffolds based polyvinyl alcohol/sodium alginate

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 139, 期 39, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.52775

关键词

biodegradable; degradation; porous materials; biocompatibility; electrochemistry

资金

  1. DGAPA, UNAM [DGAPA 2020-2021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomaterial scaffolds obtained through electrospinning of PVA with different concentrations of SA showed a gradual degradation rate under physiological conditions. The dielectric properties of the scaffolds correlated with their degradation rate, and higher roughness promoted cell proliferation and adhesion.
Biomaterial scaffolds house and direct cells to grow, exposing them to appropriate growth factors. Most of them are designed to degrade at a controlled rate as the new host tissue replaces them. Here, we show that scaffolds obtained through electrospinning of PVA with 3.5, 4.0, and 5.0 wt% of SA showed a gradual degradation rate under physiological conditions during 100 days of incubation. This behavior is proportional to the SA concentration used, with a mass loss of (41%, 47%, and 49% for each system) after 60 days. Moreover, the dielectric properties (EIS) of the scaffolds correlate with their degradation rate throughout the exposition period (100 days), as indicated by the observed decrease in resistance over time. The 4.0 wt% system showed the lowest capacitance value (1.5 10-5 F) and the highest resistance (4.6106 ohm-cm2) behavior among all concentrations. Additionally, the morphological analysis through SEM and AFM showed a shrank in the surface morphology after the degradation process and determined the degree of roughness (Ra). Higher roughness prior to the cytocompatibility test promoted increased proliferation and adhesion of HaCat cells, as observed in the 4.0 wt% PVA/SA system (1422 nm Ra). These biomaterials have great potential in wound dressing applications.

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