4.4 Article

Preparation and characterization of polycaprolactone-polyethylene glycol methyl ether and polycaprolactone-chitosan electrospun mats potential for vascular tissue engineering

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMATERIALS APPLICATIONS
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 648-662

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0885328217733849

关键词

Electro-spinning; surface modification; polycaprolactone; polyethylene glycol methyl ether; chitosan; vascular grafts

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2015R1A6A1A03032522]
  2. Soonchunhyang University
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1A6A1A03032522] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, natural polymers are frequently comingled with synthetic polymers either by physical or chemical modification to prepare numerous tissue-engineered graft with promising biological function, strength, and stability. The aim of this study was to determine the efficiency for vascular tissue engineering of two distinctly different mats, one that comprised polycaprolactone-polyethylene glycol methyl ether and other that comprised polycaprolactone-chitosan. Nano/microfibrous mats prepared from electro-spinning were characterized for fiber diameter, porosity, wettability, and mechanical strength. Biological efficacy on both biodegradable mats was assessed by rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, and polycaprolactone-polyethylene glycol methyl ether showed feasibility for use as an inner layer by inducing endothelial-specific gene expression and polycaprolactone-chitosan as an outer layer on dual layered without sacrificing tensile strength, small-diameter blood vessels. Therefore, scaffolds fabricated from this research could be potential sources for tissue-engineered vascular graft and could also overcome the well-known drawbacks, such as thrombogenicity and stenosis, in managing vascular disease.

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

4.4
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