4.5 Article

A Novel Nano/Micro-Fibrous Scaffold by Melt-Spinning Method for Bone Tissue Engineering

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIONIC ENGINEERING
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 117-128

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1672-6529(14)60106-2

关键词

PLGA-based scaffold; melt-spinning; nano/micro-fibers; bone tissue engineering

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51103149, 51273195, 51321062]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to architecturally and functionally mimic native Extracellular Matrix (ECM), a novel micro/nano-fibrous scaffold of hydroxyapetite/poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (HA/PLGA) composite was successfully prepared by melt-spinning method. A porous three-dimensional scaffold fabricated by melt-molding particulate-leaching method was used as control. This kind of scaffold comprising both nanofiber and microfiber had an original structure including a nano-network favorable for cell adhesion, and a micro-fiber providing a strong skeleton for support. The microfibers and nanofibers were blended homogeneously in scaffold and the compression strength reached to 6.27 MPa, which was close to human trabecular bone. The typical micro/nano-fibrous structure was more beneficial for the proliferation and differentiation of Bone Mesenchymal Stem Cells (BMSCs). The calcium deposition and Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP) activity were evaluated by the differentiation of BMSCs, and the results indicated that the temporary ECM was very beneficial for the differentiation of BMSCs into maturing osteoblasts. For repairing rabbit radius defects in vivo, micro/nano-fibrous scaffold was used for the purpose of rapid bone remodeling in the defect area. The results showed that a distinct bony callus of bridging was observed at 12 weeks post-surgery and the expression of osteogenesis-related genes (bone-morphogenetic protein-2, Osteonectin, collagen-I) increased because of the ECM-like structure. Based on the results, the novel micro/nano-fibrous scaffold might be a promising candidate for bone tissue engineering.

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

4.5
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