4.6 Article

Hierarchically porous calcium phosphate scaffold with degradable PLGA microsphere network

期刊

MATERIALS CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 301, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2023.127633

关键词

Calcium phosphate cement; Poly (lactic co-glycolic acid); Degradation; Hierarchical pore structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To enhance the bone regeneration effect of calcium phosphate cement (CPC), researchers mixed poly(lactic co-glycolic acid) microspheres and wollastonite with CPC powder to create composite bone repair materials.
Calcium phosphate cement (CPC) is widely used in orthopedics, dentistry and spine surgery because of its excellent biocompatibility, osteoconductivity, arbitrary shaping and self-setting ability. However, slow degradation rate of CPC decreases its bone regeneration efficacy. Herein, poly (lactic co-glycolic acid) microspheres (PLGAm) and wollastonite (WS) were mixed with CPC powder to prepare CPC composite pastes, and then the composite pastes were perfused into poly (lactic co-glycolic acid) network (PLGAnw) to construct composite bone repair materials. The degradation of PLGAnw generated interconnected macropores with the short side of about 468 mu m along horizontal axis and the long side of about 785 mu m along longitudinal axis, while PLGAm degradation generated isolated or partially connected relative smaller spherical macropores with the size range of 53-106 mu m and 106-150 mu m, respectively, which was same with PLGAm; in addition, CPC formed micro/nano pores after hydration, thus constructing in-situ hierarchically porous CPC composite scaffolds. Meanwhile, PLGAnw and PLGAm also significantly promoted the degradation of CPC due to the release of acidic by-products. Therefore, the introduction of PLGA network and microspheres not only can evidently accelerate degradation of CPC, but also in-situ form connected macropores and hierarchically porous after their degradation, which are expected to improve bone repair effect of CPC.

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