4.4 Article

Degradation and drug release of phosphate glass/polycaprolactone biological composites for hard-tissue regeneration

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30223

关键词

phosphate glass (P-glass); polycaprolactone; hard-tissue regenerative; glass dissolution; degradation; drug release

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phosphate-based glass (P-glass) and poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL) composites were fabricated in a sheet form by solvent extraction and thermal pressing methods, and the antibiotic drug Vancomycin was loaded within the composites for use as a hard-tissue regenerative. The degradation and drug-release rate of the composites in vitro were tailored by modifying the glass composition: 0.45P(2)O(5)-xCaO-(0.55-x)Na2O, where x = 0.2,0.3,0.4, and 0.5. Compared to pure PCL, all the P-glass/PCL composites degraded to a higher degree, and the composite with lower-CaO glass showed a higher material loss. This was attributed mainly to the dissolution of the glass component. The glass dissolution also increased the degradation of PCL component in the composites. The Vancomycin release from the composites was strongly dependent on the glass composition. Drug release in pure PCL was initially abrupt and flattened out over a prolonged period. However, glass/PCL composites (particularly in the glass containing higher-CaO) exhibited a reduced initial burst and a higher release rate later. Preliminary cell tests on the extracts from the glass/PCL composites showed favorable cell proliferation, but the level was dependent on the ionic concentration of the extracts. The cell proliferation on the diluted extracts from the composite with higher-CaO glass was significantly higher than that on the blank culture dish. These observations confirmed that the P-glass/PCL composites are potentially applicable for use as hard-tissue regeneration and wound-healing materials because of their controlled degradation and drug-release profile as well as enhanced cell viability. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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