Literature DB >> 30423758

Investigating the mechanical, physiochemical and osteogenic properties in gelatin-chitosan-bioactive nanoceramic composite scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration: In vitro and in vivo.

Sudip Dasgupta1, Kanchan Maji2, Samit Kumar Nandi3.   

Abstract

The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy of gelatin-chitosan based bone scaffolds after incorporation of three different bioactive nanoparticles such as hydroxyapatite (HAp), β‑tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) and 58s bio active glass by evaluating its physicochemical, mechanical and osteogenic properties. Gelatin-chitosan based scaffolds made of gelatin-chitosan (GC) and GC composites containing 30 wt% HAp, β-TCP and 58s bioactive glass nanoparticles were fabricated using freeze drying technique. The porosity and compressive strength of all the prepared scaffolds were evaluated. The average pore size of all the prepared composite scaffolds was in the range between 90 and 125 μm. Most frequent pore size in GCT 30 scaffold was the highest of 120 μm whereas that for GCH 30 was the lowest of 96 μm as suggested by Hg porosimetry analysis. GCH30 scaffolds showed the highest average compressive strength of 3.45 MPa as opposed to 2.24 MPa exhibited by GCB 30, with high degree of interconnected porosity appropriate for cellular colonization. To study the effect of different bioceramic phases on MSCs differentiation, scaffolds were cell cultured for up to 14 days in osteogenic medium. GCB30 scaffold showed higher capacity to proliferate MSCs cultured onto it as compared to other composite scaffolds. Degree of differentiation of MSCs into osteoblast was higher in GCB30 scaffolds than in the GCH30 and GCT30 composite scaffold as evident from higher amount of RUNX2 and osteocalcin expression in the former up to 14 days of cell culture. Inclusion of 58s bioactive glass particles showed positive effects on cell differentiation. In coherence with the in vitro appearance, histomorphometric analysis and fluorochrome study in a rabbit tibia model showed a significantly greater amount of new bone formation in GCB30 compared to other composite scaffolds. The results demonstrated that the prepared GCB30 scaffold could be a better candidate as bone substitute material for its higher bioactivity in bone tissue regeneration.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30423758     DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.10.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl        ISSN: 0928-4931            Impact factor:   7.328


  6 in total

Review 1.  Role of animal models in biomedical research: a review.

Authors:  P Mukherjee; S Roy; D Ghosh; S K Nandi
Journal:  Lab Anim Res       Date:  2022-07-01

2.  The effect of enhanced bone marrow in conjunction with 3D-printed PLA-HA in the repair of critical-sized bone defects in a rabbit model.

Authors:  Zhiqing Liu; Wenxiang Chu; Linyuan Zhang; Yueting Wang; Zanjing Zhai; Fengxiang Liu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-07

3.  Evaluation of a novel nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite powder and a solid hydroxyapatite/Chitosan-Gelatin bioceramic for scaffold preparation used as a bone substitute material.

Authors:  Sharmin Rahman; Kazi Hanium Maria; Mohammad Saif Ishtiaque; Arijun Nahar; Harinarayan DAS; Sheikh Manjura Hoque
Journal:  Turk J Chem       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 1.239

4.  Tissue-Material Integration and Biostimulation Study of Collagen Acellular Matrices.

Authors:  Lindsey Alejandra Quintero Sierra; Alice Busato; Nicola Zingaretti; Anita Conti; Reetuparna Biswas; Maurizio Governa; Enrico Vigato; Pier Camillo Parodi; Paolo Bernardi; Andrea Sbarbati; Giamaica Conti
Journal:  Tissue Eng Regen Med       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 4.451

Review 5.  The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Giulia Brunello; Sourav Panda; Lucia Schiavon; Stefano Sivolella; Lisa Biasetto; Massimo Del Fabbro
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 3.623

6.  Assessment of the Toxicity of Biocompatible Materials Supporting Bone Regeneration: Impact of the Type of Assay and Used Controls.

Authors:  Milena Chraniuk; Mirosława Panasiuk; Lilit Hovhannisyan; Sabina Żołędowska; Dawid Nidzworski; Lidia Ciołek; Anna Woźniak; Agnieszka Kubiś; Natalia Karska; Zbigniew Jaegermann; Sylwia Rodziewicz-Motowidło; Monika Biernat; Beata Gromadzka
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2022-01-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.