| Literature DB >> 32509747 |
Tianyang Qiu1, Wei Jiang2, Pei Yan1, Li Jiao1, Xibin Wang1.
Abstract
Bioresorbable polymeric stents have attractEntities:
Keywords: 3D printing; biocompatibility; bioresorbable stent; mechanical property; sulfated chitosan
Year: 2020 PMID: 32509747 PMCID: PMC7248363 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 13D-printing trajectory strategy (A), 3D printer machine (B), machine methodology (C), and 3D-printed PCL stents (D).
Optimized processing parameters for 3D printing of PCL stents.
| PCL | 1.5 | 1000 | 1000 | 2.5 | Brass |
FIGURE 2Schematic reaction of 2-N, 6-O-sulfated chitosan (A) and aminolysis reaction of sulfated chitosan with PCL stents (B). * means the repetition of molecular structure.
FIGURE 3SEM images of PCL stent (A–C) and S-PCL stent (D–F) with different magnifications.
FIGURE 4Lateral crush resistance test (A), force–displacement curve (B), and stress–strain curve (C).
FIGURE 5Degradation behavior of S-PCL stents.
FIGURE 6Hemolytic percentage of RBCs incubated with PCL and S-PCL stent extracts at different time points.
FIGURE 7Morphology of RBCs in extracts of PCL and S-PCL stent and PBS solution.
FIGURE 8Effect of PCL and S-PCL stent on APTT and PT compared to PBS control.
FIGURE 9Cell viability with different percentages of PCL and S-PCL stent extracts.
FIGURE 10Live/Dead staining images of L929 cells seeded on the PCL and S-PCL stents after 1 and 7 days.
FIGURE 11Cytoskeleton fluorescence staining images of L929 cells seeded on PCL and S-PCL stents after 1 and 7 days.
FIGURE 12Cell proliferation on PCL and S-PCL stents compared to PBS control.