| Literature DB >> 27872844 |
Pedro Morouço1, Sara Biscaia1, Tânia Viana1, Margarida Franco1, Cândida Malça2, Artur Mateus1, Carla Moura3, Frederico C Ferreira4, Geoffrey Mitchell1, Nuno M Alves1.
Abstract
Biomaterial properties and controlled architecture of scaffolds are essential features to provide an adequate biological and mechanical support for tissue regeneration, mimicking the ingrowth tissues. In this study, a bioextrusion system was used to produce 3D biodegradable scaffolds with controlled architecture, comprising three types of constructs: (i) poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) matrix as reference; (ii) PCL-based matrix reinforced with cellulose nanofibers (CNF); and (iii) PCL-based matrix reinforced with CNF and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles (HANP). The effect of the addition and/or combination of CNF and HANP into the polymeric matrix of PCL was investigated, with the effects of the biomaterial composition on the constructs (morphological, thermal, and mechanical performances) being analysed. Scaffolds were produced using a single lay-down pattern of 0/90°, with the same processing parameters among all constructs being assured. The performed morphological analyses showed a satisfactory distribution of CNF within the polymer matrix and high reliability was obtained among the produced scaffolds. Significant effects on surface wettability and thermal properties were observed, among scaffolds. Regarding the mechanical properties, higher scaffold stiffness in the reinforced scaffolds was obtained. Results from the cytotoxicity assay suggest that all the composite scaffolds presented good biocompatibility. The results of this first study on cellulose and hydroxyapatite reinforced constructs with controlled architecture clearly demonstrate the potential of these 3D composite constructs for cell cultivation with enhanced mechanical properties.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27872844 PMCID: PMC5107882 DOI: 10.1155/2016/1596157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Bioextruder system, developed by the Centre for Rapid and Sustainable Product Development, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria.
Figure 2Micrographs (magnification: 40x) of PCL (a), PCL/CNF (b), and PCL/CNF/HANP (c) membranes.
Figure 33D micro-CT images of PCL/CNF scaffolds.
Mean ± sd values of the scaffolds porosity.
| PCL | PCL/CNF | PCL/CNF/HANP |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Porosity (%) | 49.0 ± 1.4 | 49.5 ± 2.1 | 50.5 ± 2.1 | 0.749 |
Figure 4The static water contact angle of the produced nanocomposites.
Figure 5DSC curves of the processed samples: first cooling cycle (a) and second heating cycle (b).
Figure 6Thermogravimetric analysis of the produced nanocomposites scaffolds.
Thermal properties of the produced scaffolds.
| PCL | PCL/CNF | PCL/CNF/HANP |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 36.6 ± 0.14 | 38.8 ± 0.30a | 39.4 ± 0.07a,b |
|
|
| 58.0 ± 0.23 | 57.9 ± 0.21 | 58.2 ± 0.28 |
|
| Δ | 58.3 ± 2.01 | 54.6 ± 2.43 | 53.1 ± 0.79a |
|
|
| 0.42 ± 0.01 | 0.40 ± 0.02 | 0.41 ± 0.01 |
|
|
| 386.9 ± 1.75 | 381.0 ± 3.31a | 383.4 ± 0.40 |
|
| Mass loss (%) | 98.3 ± 0.25 | 96.9 ± 0.83a | 93.6 ± 0.43a,b |
|
aSignificant difference from PCL; bsignificant difference from PCL/CNF.
Figure 7Stress-strain curve of the produced scaffolds.
Compressive mechanical properties of the scaffolds.
| PCL | PCL/CNF | PCL/CNF/HANP |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compressive modulus | 54.42 ± 2.47 | 64.58 ± 5.94a | 70.88 ± 8.60a |
|
| Maximum stress | 10.96 ± 0.92 | 11.35 ± 1.21 | 12.12 ± 0.82 |
|
aSignificant difference from PCL.
Figure 8Cytotoxicity assessment: extract results.
Figure 9Cytotoxicity assessment: direct contact results of control (a); PCL scaffolds (b); PCL/CNF scaffolds (c); and PCL/CNF/HANP scaffolds (d).