4.5 Article

Chitosan membranes for tissue engineering: comparison of different crosslinkers

期刊

BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-6041/10/6/065002

关键词

tissue engineering; chitosan; crosslinking

资金

  1. Regione Piemonte (BICONERVE project)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chitosan (CS), a derivative of the naturally occurring biopolymer chitin, is an attractive material for biomedical applications thanks to its biocompatibility, biodegradability, antibacterial properties and ability to enhance cell adhesion and growth compared to other biopolymers. However, the physical and mechanical stability of CS based materials in aqueous solutions is limited and crosslinking agents are required to increase CS performances in a biological environment. In this work, the effect of three highly-biocompatible crosslinkers as genipin (GP), gamma-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (GPTMS), dibasic sodium phosphate (DSP) and a combination of GPTMS and DSP (GPTMS_DSP) on CS physicochemical, thermal, morphological, mechanical properties, swelling and degradation behavior was investigated. Infrared spectroscopy and thermogravimetric analyses confirmed the chemical reaction between CS and the different crosslinkers. CS wettability was enhanced when CS was DSP ionically crosslinked showing contact angle values of about 65 degrees and exhibiting a higher swelling behavior compared to covalently crosslinked films. Moreover, all the crosslinking methods analyzed improved the stability of CS in aqueous media, showed model molecule permeation in time and increased the mechanical properties when compared with non-crosslinked films. The possibility to tailor the final properties of CS scaffolds through crosslinking is a key strategy in applying CS in different biomedical and tissue engineering applications. The obtained results reveal that the optimization of the crosslinking mechanism provides CS membrane properties required in different biomedical applications.

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