4.6 Article

3D printing nano conductive multi-walled carbon nanotube scaffolds for nerve regeneration

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURAL ENGINEERING
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/aa95a5

关键词

3D printing; carbon nanotubes; hydrogel; nerve regeneration

资金

  1. March of Dimes Foundation's Gene Discovery and Translational Research Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs), have been introduced to modify the surface properties of scaffolds, thus enhancing the interaction between the neural cells and biomaterials. In addition to superior electrical conductivity, CNTs can provide nanoscale structures similar to those present in the natural neural environment. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the proliferative capability and differential potential of neural stem cells (NSCs) seeded on a CNT incorporated scaffold. Approach. Amine functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were incorporated with a PEGDA polymer to provide enhanced electrical properties as well as nanofeatures on the surface of the scaffold. A stereolithography 3D printer was employed to fabricate a well-dispersed MWCNT-hydrogel composite neural scaffold with a tunable porous structure. 3D printing allows easy fabrication of complex 3D scaffolds with extremely intricate microarchitectures and controlled porosity. Main results. Our results showed that MWCNT-incorporated scaffolds promoted neural stem cell proliferation and early neuronal differentiation when compared to those scaffolds without the MWCNTs. Furthermore, biphasic pulse stimulation with 500 mu A current promoted neuronal maturity quantified through protein expression analysis by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Significance. Results of this study demonstrated that an electroconductive MWCNT scaffold, coupled with electrical stimulation, may have a synergistic effect on promoting neurite outgrowth for therapeutic application in nerve regeneration.

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