4.8 Article

X-ray imaging optimization of 3D tissue engineering scaffolds via combinatorial fabrication methods

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 1901-1911

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.12.042

关键词

combinatorial library; polycarbonate; scaffolds; radiopacity; X-ray microcomputed tomography; X-ray radiography

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R21 EB 006497-01, P41 EB001046-07, P41 EB 001046, P41 EB001046] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have developed a combinatorial method for determining optimum tissue scaffold composition for several X-ray imaging techniques. X-ray radiography and X-ray microcomputed tomography enable non-invasive imaging of implants in vivo and in vitro. However, highly porous polymeric scaffolds do not always possess sufficient X-ray contrast and are therefore difficult to image with X-ray-based techniques. Incorporation of high radiocontrast atoms, such as iodine, into the polymer structure improves X-ray radiopacity but also affects physicochemical properties and material performance. Thus, we have developed a combinatorial library approach to efficiently determine the minimum amount of contrast agent necessary for X-ray-based imaging. The combinatorial approach is demonstrated in a polymer blend scaffold system where X-ray imaging of poly(desaminotyrosyl-tyrosine ethyl ester carbonate) (pDTEc) scaffolds is improved through a controlled composition variation with an iodinated-pDTEc analog (PI(2)DTEc). The results show that pDTEc scaffolds must include at least 9%, 16%, 38% or 46% PI(2)DTEc (by mass) to enable effective imaging by microradiography, dental radiography, dental radiography through 0.75 cm, of muscle tissue or microcomputed tomography, respectively. Only two scaffold libraries were required to determine these minimum PI(2)DTEc percentages required for X-ray imaging, which demonstrates the efficiency of this new combinatorial approach for optimizing scaffold formulations. (C) 2008 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