4.5 Article

Polyurethanes with separately tunable biodegradation behavior and mechanical properties for tissue engineering

期刊

POLYMERS FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 528-540

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pat.4160

关键词

in vitro biodegradation; poly(glycolide-co-caprolactone) macrodiol; segmented polyurethane; synthesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two series (random and block) poly(glycolide-co-epsilon-caprolactone) macrodiols with various glycolide to epsilon-caprolactone ratios (50/50 and 30/70, R-PG50C, R-PG30C, B-PG50C, and B-PG30C) were synthesized. Next, segmented polyurethanes (PUs) were synthesized based on the synthesized macrodiols, 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate and 1,4-butanediol (PU-R30, PU-R50, PU-B30, and PU-B50). Effect of glycolide (G) and epsilon-caprolactone (C) monomers arrangement (random or block) on the PUs properties were investigated via FTIR, H-1 NMR, DSC, TGA, DMA, SEM, and mechanical tests. All PUs illustrated T-g (-33 degrees C to -48 degrees C) and T-m (102 degrees C to 139 degrees C) corresponding to the soft and the hard segments, respectively. Polymers based on block macrodiols also showed T-m related to the soft segments. While PUs underwent a two-step thermal degradation, the PUs based on block macrodiols indicated higher degradation temperature. Dynamic mechanical analysis results evidenced development of a well-defined microphase separated structure in PU-R30. Contact angle (about 70 degrees-80 degrees) and water uptake (around 20% after 24hours) of the PU films are close to those suitable for tissue engineering materials. The PU based on R-PG30C (PU-R30) exhibited the highest tensile strength (2.87MPa) followed by PU-B50 and PU-R50. Over a 63-day in vitro degradation study in phosphate buffered saline, the PUs showed variable weight loss (up to 40%) depending on their soft segments composition and arrangement. Also, the PUs showed no cytotoxicity. Thus, these PUs with tunable biodegradation rate and mechanical properties are suitable candidates for tissue engineering.

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

4.5
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