| Literature DB >> 32013171 |
Luminita Nicoleta Dumitrescu1,2, Patricia Neacsu3, Madalina G Necula3, Anca Bonciu1,2, Valentina Marascu1, Anisoara Cimpean3, Antoniu Moldovan1, Andrei Rotaru1,4,5, Valentina Dinca1, Maria Dinescu1.
Abstract
Recent advancements in biomedicine have focused on designing novel and stable interfaces that can drive a specific cellular response toward the requirements of medical devices or implants. Among these, in recent years, electroactive polymers (i.e., polyvinylidene fluoride or PVDF) have caught the attention within the biomedical applications sector, due to their insolubility, stability in biological media, in vitro and in vivo non-toxicity, or even piezoelectric properties. However, the main disadvantage of PVDF-based bio-interfaces is related to the absence of the functional groups on the fluoropolymer and their hydrophobic character leading to a deficiency of cell adhesion and proliferation. This work was aimed at obtaining hydrophilic functional PVDF polymer coatings by using, for the first time, the one-step, matrix-assisted pulsed evaporation (MAPLE) method, testing the need of a post-deposition thermal treatment and analyzing their preliminary capacity to support MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblast cell survival. As osteoblast cells are known to prefer rough surfaces, MAPLE deposition parameters were studied for obtaining coatings with roughness of tens to hundreds of nm, while maintaining the chemical properties similar to those of the pristine material. The in vitro studies indicated that all surfaces supported the survival of viable osteoblasts with active metabolisms, similar to the "control" sample, with no major differences regarding the thermally treated materials; this eliminates the need to use a secondary step for obtaining hydrophilic PVDF coatings. The physical-chemical characteristics of the thin films, along with the in vitro analyses, suggest that MAPLE is an adequate technique for fabricating PVDF thin films for further bio-applications.Entities:
Keywords: MAPLE; PVDF; coatings; induced-hydrophilicity; polymeric biointerface; thermal treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32013171 PMCID: PMC7036970 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25030582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Summary of the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) coating bands before and after thermal treatment (TT), as well as the fingerprint of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).
| Characteristic Bands from PVDF (CH2CHF)n | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak Assignment of PVDF MAPLE | MAPLE TT | ||
| 1400 cm−1 | ωCH2 wagging | 1400 cm−1 | ωCH2 wagging |
| 1276 cm−1 | Can be assigned to the long trans-sequence of the ferroelectric β-phase of PVDF | 1279 cm−1 | β phase |
| 1068 & | νCF2 symmetrical stretching of -CF2 group; β-phase | 1072 cm−1 | CH2 wagging |
| 1178 cm−1 | Symmetrical stretching of -CF2 group; | ||
| 882 cm−1 | C-F (stretching vibration); | 882 cm−1 | β phase; |
| 879 cm−1 | νsymCC-C (asymmetric stretching vibration) | 879 cm−1 | νsymCC-C (asymmetric stretching vibration) |
| 840 cm−1 | β-phase; | 840 cm−1 | β-phase; |
| Characteristic bands from DMSO (CH3)2SO | |||
| 1500–2000 cm−1 | Fingerprint of DMSO | ||
Figure 1FTIR attenuated total reflectance (ATR) and FTIR spectra of PVDF coatings deposited by matrix-assisted pulsed evaporation (MAPLE) and of the coatings subjected to the thermal treatment (MAPLE TT). The spectrum of the PVDF initial material are marked as a continuous black line, while the other continuous lines stand for the PVDF coatings transferred by MAPLE and the dotted lines stand for the PVDF coatings transferred by MAPLE and those that were thermally-treated (MAPLE TT).
Figure 2(a) Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDS) spectrum of PVDF thin film deposited by MAPLE at the highest laser fluence (1.5 J/cm2; see Figure 3e). (b) Graphic representation of the comparison of the C/F ratio in the PVDF coatings deposited by MAPLE and MAPLE TT at various laser fluences: 1.0, 1.3, and 1.5 J/cm2.
Figure 3Atomic force microscopy (AFM) surface morphology images of PVDF thin films (20 × 20 μm2). Comparison between PVDF bulk, with (a) drop-cast; (b) drop-cast-TT, and the MAPLE-deposited samples at different fluences: (c) 1.0 J/cm2, (e) 1.3 J/cm2, (g) 1.5 J/cm2. In addition, the thermally-treated variant of the MAPLE-deposited films at (d) 1.0 J/cm2 + TT, (f) 1.3 J/cm2 + TT, and (h) 1.5 J/cm2 + TT.
Figure 4The roughness of the PVDF bulk: drop-cast and drop-cast TT, with thin films obtained by MAPLE deposition and subsequently thermally treated with different laser fluences of 1.0 J/cm2, 1.3 J/cm2, and 1.5 J/cm2 (from the AFM measurements on areas of 20 × 20 μm2 like in Figure 3).
Figure 5Contact angle comparison of PVDF bulk: drop-cast and drop-cast-TT with PVDF-MAPLE and PVDF-MAPLE TT at different laser fluences (1.0, 1.3, and 1.5 J/cm2).
Figure 6Immunofluorescence staining of vinculin (red) in MC3T3-E1 osteoblasts after 2 h (a) and 24 h (b) of culture onto different MAPLE and MAPLE TT-deposited PVDF materials. The controls were obtained on glass samples.
Figure 7Cell viability of MC3T3-E1 cells assessed by MTT assay after 24 h of culture onto different MAPLE and MAPLE TT-deposited PVDF materials. Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 3).