4.8 Article

Sustained release of vascular endothelial growth factor from mineralized poly(lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds for tissue engineering

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 21, 期 24, 页码 2521-2527

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00120-4

关键词

drug delivery; tissue engineering; VEGF; mineralization; bone; poly(lactide-co-glycolide)

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE13033] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM145304, T32 GM 08353] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strategies to engineer bone tissue have focused on either: (1) the use of scaffolds for osteogenic cell transplantation or as conductive substrates for guided bone regeneration; or(2) release of inductive bioactive factors from these scaffold materials. This study describes an approach to add an inductive component to an osteoconductive scaffold for bone tissue engineering. We report the release of bioactive Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) from a mineralized, porous, degradable polymer scaffold. Three dimensional, porous scaffolds of the copolymer 85:15 poly(lactide-co-glycolide) were fabricated by including the growth factor into a gas foaming/particulate leaching process. The scaffold was then mineralized via incubation in a simulated body fluid. Growth of a bone-like mineral film on the inner pore surfaces of the porous scaffold is confirmed by mass increase measurements and quantification of phosphate content within scaffolds. Release of I-125-labeled VEGF was tracked over a 15 day period to determine release kinetics from the mineralized scaffolds. Sustained release from the mineralized scaffolds was achieved, and growth of the mineral film had only a minor effect on the release kinetics from the scaffolds. The VEGF released from the mineralized and non-mineralized scaffolds was over 70% active for up to 12 days following mineralization treatment, and the growth of mineral had little effect on total scaffold porosity. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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