4.6 Article

Interaction of different types of cells on physicochemically treated poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) surfaces

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 85, 期 6, 页码 1253-1262

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.10680

关键词

biodegradable; surfaces; adhesion; adsorption; ESCA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To improve the cell compatibility of poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA; 75/25 molar ratio of lactide to glycolide) surfaces, we experimented with physicochemical treatments. Chemical treatments employed 70% chloric acid, 50% sulfuric acid, and 0.5N sodium hydroxide solutions, and physical methods included corona and plasma treatments. The water contact angle of surface-treated PLGA decreased from 73 to 50-60degrees; that is, the hydrophilicity increased because of the introduction of oxygen-containing functional groups onto the PLGA backbone according to electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis. The physicochemically modified PLGA surfaces were used to investigate the interaction of four different types of cells-hepatoma (Hep G2), osteoblast (MG 63), bovine aortic endothelial (CPAE), and fibroblast (NIH/3T3) cells-in terms of the surface hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity of PLGA. The cells that adhered and grew on the physicochemically modified PLGA surfaces were counted and observed with scanning electron microscopy. The adhesion and growth of Hep G2, MG 63, CPAE, and NIH/3T3 cells on physicochemically treated PLGA surfaces, especially on chloric acid-treated PLGA surfaces, were more active than on the control. This result seems closely related to the serum protein adsorption on the surface; the serum proteins were also adsorbed more on the hydrophilic surface. Surface hydrophilicity apparently plays an important role in cell adhesion, spreading, and growth on PLGA surfaces. The surface modification technique used in this study may be applicable to tissue engineering for the improvement of tissue compatibility of film- and scaffold-type substrates. (C) 2002 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

4.6
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