4.8 Article

Mechanical Properties of Porous β-Tricalcium Phosphate Composites Prepared by Ice-Templating and Poly(ε-caprolactone) Impregnation

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 845-851

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/am507333q

关键词

ice-templating; mechanical properties; polymer impregnation; porous composites; beta-TCP

资金

  1. European Commission [FP7-NMP-2012-SMALL-6-310637]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study ceramic scaffolds of the bioresorbable and osteoconductive bioceramic beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) were impregnated with the bioresorbable and ductile polymer poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL) to investigate the influence of the impregnation on the mechanical properties of the porous composites. The initial beta-TCP scaffolds were fabricated by the ice-templating method and exhibit the typical morphology of aligned, open, and lamellar pores. This pore morphology seems to be appropriate for applications as bone replacement material. The macroporosity of the scaffolds is mostly preserved during the solution-mediated PCL impregnation as the polymer was added only in small amounts so that only the micropores of beta-TCP lamellae were infiltrated and the surface of the lamellae were coated with a thin film. Composite scaffolds show a failure behavior with brittle and plastic contributions, which increase their damage tolerance, in contrast to the absolutely brittle behavior of pure beta-TCP scaffolds. The energy consumption during bending and compression load was increased in the impregnated scaffolds by (a) elastic and plastic deformation of the introduced polymer, (b) drawing and formation of PCL fibrils which bridge micro- and macrocracks, and (c) friction of ceramic debris still glued together by PCL. PCL addition also increased the compressive and flexural strength of the scaffolds. An explanatory model for this strength enhancement was proposed that implicates the stiffening of cold-drawn PCL present in surface flaws and micropores.

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