Literature DB >> 12209942

Tissue response to microfibers of different polymers: polyester, polyethylene, polylactic acid, and polyurethane.

J E Sanders1, S D Bale, T Neumann.   

Abstract

Tissue response to single polymer microfibers of polyester (PET), polyethylene (PE), poly(L-lactic acid) (PLA), and polyurethane (PU) was assessed using a rat subcutaneous model. Fibers of diameters ranging from 1 to 15 microm were aligned parallel to each other on polycarbonate frames and implanted in the subcutaneous dorsum in the subscapular region. After 5 weeks of implantation, fibrous capsule thickness was significantly less for fibers of diameters 1-5 than for those of 11-15 microm for all polymers tested. For PET and PU, 75.0 and 71.4% respectively of the 1-5 microm fibers had no capsule, while for PE and PLA only 45.5 and 56.3% respectively had no capsule. For 1-5 microm fibers, PE had significantly thicker capsules than PET and PU. Reducing fiber diameters from 6-10 to 1-5 microm induced a greater reduction in capsule thickness than changing polymers among PET, PE, and PLA. PU showed the least encapsulation of all polymers, demonstrating significantly thinner capsules than PET, PE, and PLA for 6-10 and 11-15 microm fibers. Copyright 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12209942     DOI: 10.1002/jbm.10285

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res        ISSN: 0021-9304


  20 in total

1.  Tailoring biomaterial surface properties to modulate host-implant interactions: implication in cardiovascular and bone therapy.

Authors:  Settimio Pacelli; Vijayan Manoharan; Anna Desalvo; Nikita Lomis; Kartikeya Singh Jodha; Satya Prakash; Arghya Paul
Journal:  J Mater Chem B       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 6.331

2.  Modeling capsule tissue growth around disk-shaped implants: a numerical and in vivo study.

Authors:  Paul Ryan; Rabia Djellouli; Randy Cohen
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2008-05-17       Impact factor: 2.259

Review 3.  Biomechanics of the sensor-tissue interface-effects of motion, pressure, and design on sensor performance and the foreign body response-part I: theoretical framework.

Authors:  Kristen L Helton; Buddy D Ratner; Natalie A Wisniewski
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2011-05-01

Review 4.  Biomechanics of the sensor-tissue interface-effects of motion, pressure, and design on sensor performance and foreign body response-part II: examples and application.

Authors:  Kristen L Helton; Buddy D Ratner; Natalie A Wisniewski
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2011-05-01

5.  Optimization of Tissue-Engineered Vascular Graft Design Using Computational Modeling.

Authors:  Jason M Szafron; Abhay B Ramachandra; Christopher K Breuer; Alison L Marsden; Jay D Humphrey
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part C Methods       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 3.056

6.  Theoretical study of the fibrous capsule tissue growth around a disk-shaped implant.

Authors:  R Djellouli; S Mahserejian; A Mokrane; M Moussaoui; T M Laleg-Kirati
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 2.259

7.  In vivo tissue engineering of a trilayered leaflet-shaped tissue construct.

Authors:  Soumen Jana; Amir Lerman
Journal:  Regen Med       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.806

8.  ECM-mimicking nanofibrous matrix coaxes macrophages toward an anti-inflammatory phenotype: Cellular behaviors and transcriptome analysis.

Authors:  Rui-Xin Wu; Chi Ma; Yongxi Liang; Fa-Ming Chen; Xiaohua Liu
Journal:  Appl Mater Today       Date:  2019-11-26

9.  A review of the development of a vehicle for localized and controlled drug delivery for implantable biosensors.

Authors:  Upkar Bhardwaj; Fotios Papadimitrakopoulos; Diane J Burgess
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2008-11

Review 10.  Physical approaches to biomaterial design.

Authors:  Samir Mitragotri; Joerg Lahann
Journal:  Nat Mater       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 43.841

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.