4.5 Article

Biocompatible high performance hyperbranched epoxy/clay nanocomposite as an implantable material

期刊

BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-6041/9/2/025006

关键词

hyperbranched epoxy; clay; nanocomposite; antibacterial; biomaterial

资金

  1. NRB [DNRD/05/4003/NRB/251]
  2. SAP (UGC), India [F.3-30/2009(SAP-II)]
  3. FIST program (DST), India [SR/FST/CSI-203/209/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polymeric biomaterials are in extensive use in the domain of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. High performance hyperbranched epoxy is projected here as a potential biomaterial for tissue regeneration. Thermosetting hyperbranched epoxy nanocomposites were prepared with Homalomena aromatica rhizome oil-modified bentonite as well as organically modified montmorillonite clay. Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy, x-ray diffraction and scanning and transmission electron microscopic techniques confirmed the strong interfacial interaction of clay layers with the epoxy matrix. The poly(amido amine)-cured thermosetting nanocomposites exhibited high mechanical properties like impact resistance (>100 cm), scratch hardness (>10 kg), tensile strength (48-58 MPa) and elongation at break (11.9-16.6%). Cytocompatibility of the thermosets was found to be excellent as evident by MTT and red blood cell hemolytic assays. The nanocomposites exhibited antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 11632), Escherichia coli (ATCC 10536), Mycobacterium smegmatis (ATCC14468) and Candida albicans (ATCC 10231) strains. In vivo biocompatibility of the best performing nanocomposite was ascertained by histopathological study of the brain, heart, liver and skin after subcutaneous implantation in Wistar rats. The material supported the proliferation of dermatocytes without induction of any sign of toxicity to the above organs. The adherence and proliferation of cells endorse the nanocomposite as a non-toxic biomaterial for tissue regeneration.

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