4.8 Article

PDLLA/Bioglass® composites for soft-tissue and hard-tissue engineering:: an in vitro cell biology assessment

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 25, 期 15, 页码 3013-3021

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.081

关键词

bone tissue engineering; lung; epithelial cells; polylactic acid; bioactive glasses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of increased content of 45S5 Bioglass(R) (0-40wt%) in poly(DL-lactic acid) (PDLLA) porous foams on the behaviour of MG-63 (human osteosarcoma cell line) and A549 cells (human lung carcinoma cell line). The ability of these cell lines to grow on bioactive composites was quantitatively investigated in order to assess the potentiality for their use in hard and soft-tissue engineering. Two hours after cell seeding, an increase of cell adhesion according to the increased content of Bioglass(R) present in the foams for both cell types was observed. Cell proliferation studies performed over a period of 4 weeks showed a better aptitude of the A549 cells to proliferate on PDLLA foams containing 5 wt% Bioglass(R) when compared to the proliferation on foams with 40 wt% Bioglass(R). A lower proliferation rate was obtained for cells on pure PDLLA. Scanning electron microscopy analysis showed for both cell types the presence of cells inside the porous structure of the foams. These results confirmed the biocompatibility of PDLLA/Bioglass(R) composite foams and the positive effect of Bioglass(R) on MG-63 cell behaviour and also showed for the first time the possibility for human lung epithelial type II cells to adhere and proliferate on these porous scaffolds. In addition. we describe a positive effect of 45S5 Bioglass(R) on A549 cell behaviour in a dose-dependent manner, indicating the potential of using PDLLA/Bioglass(R) composites with an optimal concentration of 45S5 Bioglass(R) not only in bone tissue engineering but also in lung tissue engineering. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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