4.8 Article

Effect of Silica and Hydroxyapatite Mineralization on the Mechanical Properties and the Biocompatibility of Nanocomposite Collagen Scaffolds

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 3, 期 11, 页码 4323-4331

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/am200993q

关键词

organic/inorganic composite; collagen scaffold; mechanical properties; human bone marrow stromal cell; osteoblast; biocompatibility; cell migration

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Collaborative Research Centre) [TRR 79/SP M3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A recently established materials concept of biomimetic composites based on silica, collagen, and calcium phosphates was adapted for the preparation of porous scaffolds suitable for tissue engineering applications. Mineralization was achieved by directed nucleation of silica on the templating organic phase during a sol-gel process with or without addition of hydroxyapatite. Both mineral phases (25 wt %, individually or combined in equal shares) influenced the scaffold's morphology at the nanoscale. Enhancement of apparent density and compressive strength was similar for silica or hydroxyapatite mineralization; however the stiffening effect of hydroxyapatite was much higher. All scaffold modifications provided proper conditions for adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells. The open porosity allowed cells to migrate throughout the scaffolds while maintaining their viability, both confirmed by MTT staining and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Initial cell distributions were graduated due to collagen mineralization, but balanced out over the cultivation time of 28 days. RTPCR analyses revealed higher gene expression of ALP but lower expression of BSP II and osteocalcin because of collagen mineralization. The results demonstrate that both silica and hydroxyapatite offer comparable possibilities to tailor mechanical properties of collagen-based scaffolds without being detrimental to in vitro biocompatibility.

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

4.8
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