4.7 Article

Chemical vs thermal accelerated hydrolytic degradation of 3D-printed PLLA/PLCL bioresorbable stents: Characterization and influence of sterilization

期刊

POLYMER TESTING
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2022.107817

关键词

Solvent-cast direct-writing; Bioresorbable stents; Poly-L-lactic acid; Hydrolytic degradation; Sterilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a comprehensive investigation on the degradation of poly-lactic acid and poly-lactic-co-epsilon-caprolactone stents through two different accelerated assays. The results reveal different degradation mechanisms under alkaline and high temperature conditions. The degradation rate of poly-lactic-co-epsilon-caprolactone is found to be higher than that of poly-lactic acid.
Bioresorbable stents (BRS) are designed to provide initial sufficient mechanical support to prevent vessel recoil while being degraded until their complete resorption. Therefore, degradation rate of BRS plays a crucial role in successful stent performance. This work presents a complete study on the degradation of poly-llactic acid (PLLA) and poly(lactic-co-epsilon-caprolactone) (PLCL) stents fabricated by solvent-cast direct-writing (SC-DW) through two different accelerated assays: alkaline medium at 37 degrees C for 10 days and PBS at 50 degrees C for 4 months. On retrieval, degraded stents were characterized in terms of mass loss, molecular weight (Mw), thermal and mechanical properties. The results showed that under alkaline conditions, stents underwent surface erosion, whereas stents immersed in PBS at 50 degrees C experienced bulk degradation. M-n decrease was accurately described by the autocatalyzed kinetic model, with PLCL showing a degradation rate 1.5 times higher than PLLA. Additionally, stents were subjected to gamma-irradiation and ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization. Whereas EtOsterilized stents remained structurally unaltered, gamma-irradiated stents presented severe deterioration as a result of extensive chain scission.

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