| Literature DB >> 28772425 |
Kuo-Yang Tsai1, Hung-Yang Lin2,3, Yi-Wen Chen4,5, Cheng-Yao Lin6, Tuan-Ti Hsu7, Chia-Tze Kao8,9.
Abstract
In this study, we manufacture and analyze bioactive magnesium-calcium silicate/poly-ε-caprolactone (Mg-CS/PCL) 3D scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mg-CS powder was incorporated into PCL, and we fabricated the 3D scaffolds using laser sintering technology. These scaffolds had high porosity and interconnected-design macropores and structures. As compared to pure PCL scaffolds without an Mg-CS powder, the hydrophilic properties and degradation rate are also improved. For scaffolds with more than 20% Mg-CS content, the specimens become completely covered by a dense bone-like apatite layer after soaking in simulated body fluid for 1 day. In vitro analyses were directed using human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) on all scaffolds that were shown to be biocompatible and supported cell adhesion and proliferation. Increased focal adhesion kinase and promoted cell adhesion behavior were observed after an increase in Mg-CS content. In addition, the results indicate that the Mg-CS quantity in the composite is higher than 10%, and the quantity of cells and osteogenesis-related protein of hMSCs is stimulated by the Si ions released from the Mg-CS/PCL scaffolds when compared to PCL scaffolds. Our results proved that 3D Mg-CS/PCL scaffolds with such a specific ionic release and good degradability possessed the ability to promote osteogenetic differentiation of hMSCs, indicating that they might be promising biomaterials with potential for next-generation bone tissue engineering scaffolds.Entities:
Keywords: calcium silicate; human marrow stem cells; laser sintering; osteogenesis; scaffold
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772425 PMCID: PMC5344575 DOI: 10.3390/ma10010065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1XRD patterns of the various Mg–CS content of 3D scaffolds.
Figure 2Water contact angle of different scaffolds.
Figure 3TGA curves of different Mg–CS/PCL scaffolds.
Figure 4Surface SEM images of the scaffolds (A–D) before immersion in SBF—low magnification; (E–H) before immersion in SBF—high magnification; and (I–L) after immersion in SBF.
Figure 5(A) Ca; (B) Si; (C) Mg; and (D) P concentration of SBF after immersion for different time.
Figure 6Weight loss of various scaffolds after immersion in SBF for predetermined time durations.
Figure 7The adhesion of hMSCs cultured with various specimens for different time-points. “*” indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to CS0.
Figure 8Western blotting of pFAK protein expression of hMSCs cultured on various specimens for 3 h. “*” indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to CS0.
Figure 9The proliferation of hMSCs cultured with various specimens for different time-points. “*” indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to CS0.
Figure 10(A) ALP activity; and (B) OC amount of hMSCs cultured on various scaffolds for different time points. “*” indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to CS0.
Figure 11(A) Alizarin red S staining and (B) quantification of calcium mineral deposits by hMSCs cultured on Mg–CS/PCL for 1 and 2 weeks. The “*” indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to CS0.