4.6 Article

Characterization of highly interconnected porous poly(lactic acid) and chitosan-coated poly(lactic acid) scaffold fabricated by vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding and particle leaching

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 51, 期 22, 页码 9958-9970

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-016-0203-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51303027]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2014M560525]
  3. University Scientific Research Foundation of Fujian [JK2014030]
  4. Opening Foundation of National Center for International Research of Micro-nano Molding Technology AMP
  5. Key Laboratory for Micro Molding Technology of Henan Province [MMT2016-02]
  6. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Fuzhou University [650077]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polylactic acid (PLA) scaffolds were prepared using vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM), phase separation, solvent extraction, and particle leaching approaches. A chitosan (CS)-coated PLA scaffold was then fabricated using CS coating treatment. To control the pore morphology and porosity, different processing parameters, such as NaCl particle size and PLA solution concentrations were studied. The properties of porous PLA and CS-coated PLA scaffold, including the microstructure, porosity, water absorption, hydrophilicity, compression modulus, and compression strength were investigated. The results showed that PLA and CS-coated PLA scaffold with porosities as high as 94 %, water absorption up to 1200 %, and compressive modulus ranging from 241 to 442 kPa were produced. The pore morphology on the surface and within the scaffold showed the presence of multiple open pores with excellent interconnectivity. Additionally, the CS-coated PLA scaffold showed significantly improved hydrophilicity and mechanical properties compared to the untreated PLA scaffold. Hence, the CS-coated PLA scaffold was expected to exhibit a better biocompatibility than PLA scaffold because of the enhancement of the hydrophilicity.

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