4.7 Article

Evaluation of different crosslinking agents on hybrid biomimetic collagen-hydroxyapatite composites for regenerative medicine

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.076

关键词

Biomineralization; Biomimetic; Crosslinking; DHT; BDDGE; Ribose

资金

  1. European Project BIOINSPIRE-Training program on new bio-inspired bone regeneration [FP7-PEOPLE-2013 ITN-607051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the development of novel bone-like scaffolds by bio-inspired, pH-driven, mineralization of type I collagen matrix with magnesium-doped hydroxyapatite nanophase (MgHA/Coll). To this aim, this study evaluates the altered modifications in the obtained composite due to different crosslinkers such as dehydrothermal treatment (DHT), 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDGE) and ribose in terms of morphological, physical-chemical and biological properties. The physical-chemical properties of the composites evaluated by XRD, FTIR, ICP and TGA demonstrated that the chemical mimesis of bone was effectively achieved using the in-lab biomineralization process. Furthermore, the presence of various crosslinkers greatly promoted beneficial enzymatic resistivity and swelling ability. The morphological results revealed highly porous and fibrous micro-architecture with total porosity above 85% with anisotropic pore size within the range of 50-200 mu m in all the analysed composites. The mechanical behaviour in response to compressive forces demonstrated enhanced compressive modulus in all crosslinked composites, suggesting that mechanical behaviour is largely dependent on the type of crosslinker used. The biomimetic compositional and morphological features of the composites elicited strong cell-material interaction. Therefore, the results showed that by activating specific crosslinking mechanisms, hybrid composites can be designed and tailored to develop tissue-specific biomimetic biomaterials for hard tissue engineering. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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