Literature DB >> 12761836

Relative influence of polymer fiber diameter and surface charge on fibrous capsule thickness and vessel density for single-fiber implants.

J E Sanders1, D V Cassisi, T Neumann, S L Golledge, S G Zachariah, B D Ratner, S D Bale.   

Abstract

Single polypropylene microfibers plasma-coated with polymers of different surface charge [N,N-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (NN) (positive charge), methacrylic acid (MA) (negative charge), and hexafluoropropylene (HF) (neutral)] were implanted in the subcutaneous dorsum of Sprague-Dawley rats for 5-week intervals. Thee groups of fiber diameters were used: (I) 1.0 to 5.9 microm; (II) 6.0 to 10.9 microm; and (III) 11.0 to 15.9 microm. Fibrous capsule thickness and blood-vessel density (number of vessels within 100 microm of the fiber) were assessed in tissue sections in the planes of microfiber cross-sections. Results from a multifactorial analysis of variance demonstrated statistically significant main effects (p < 0.05) for microfiber diameter but not for surface-charge coating. The mean differences in capsule thickness among the microfiber diameter groups were: between groups II and I: 5.4 microm; between groups III and I: 10.2 microm; and between groups III and II: 4.7 microm. The mean differences in capsule thickness among surface-charge coatings were: between MA and NN: 0.7 microm; between MA and HF: 1.4 microm; and between NN and HF: 0.7 microm. Many of the 1.0 to 5.9 microm-in-diameter fibers had no capsule and no sign of a foreign-body reaction. For the vessel density analysis, neither microfiber diameter nor surface-charge coating had a statistically significant effect. Thus the geometric feature of microfiber diameter was more important than was surface charge relative to fibrous capsule formation but not relative to local vessel density. This ranking of the relative influence of design features in relation to tissue response provides useful information for prioritization in biomaterial design. Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 65A: 462-467, 2003

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12761836     DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.10525

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A        ISSN: 1549-3296            Impact factor:   4.396


  9 in total

1.  Use of an insulating mask for controlling anisotropy in multilayer electrospun scaffolds for tissue engineering.

Authors:  N William Garrigues; Dianne Little; Christopher J O'Conor; Farshid Guilak
Journal:  J Mater Chem       Date:  2010-10-28

2.  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

3.  Advances in Subcutaneous Glucose Sensing.

Authors:  Jessica R Castle
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 4.  Biocompatible materials for continuous glucose monitoring devices.

Authors:  Scott P Nichols; Ahyeon Koh; Wesley L Storm; Jae Ho Shin; Mark H Schoenfisch
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 60.622

5.  Foreign Body Reaction to Implantable Biosensors: Effects of Tissue Trauma and Implant Size.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Santhisagar Vaddiraju; Bing Gu; Fotios Papadimitrakopoulos; Diane J Burgess
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-08-25

6.  A hypothesis-driven parametric study of effects of polymeric scaffold properties on tissue engineered neovessel formation.

Authors:  Kristin S Miller; Ramak Khosravi; Christopher K Breuer; Jay D Humphrey
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 8.947

Review 7.  Biocompatibility Evolves: Phenomenology to Toxicology to Regeneration.

Authors:  Lars Crawford; Meghan Wyatt; James Bryers; Buddy Ratner
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 11.092

8.  Biomimetic electrospun coatings increase the in vivo sensitivity of implantable glucose biosensors.

Authors:  Krishna Burugapalli; Shavini Wijesuriya; Ning Wang; Wenhui Song
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2017-12-23       Impact factor: 4.396

Review 9.  Thinking Small: Progress on Microscale Neurostimulation Technology.

Authors:  Joseph J Pancrazio; Felix Deku; Atefeh Ghazavi; Allison M Stiller; Rashed Rihani; Christopher L Frewin; Victor D Varner; Timothy J Gardner; Stuart F Cogan
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2017-10-27
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.