The Effect of Alternative Solvents on the Biocompatibility of Centrifugally Spun Poly-ε-Caprolactone

Vera Lukášová; Matej Buzgo; Evzen Amler; Eva Filová; Michala  Rampichová

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.834.155

Paper Titles

Enhanced Electromagnetic Wave Shielding Effectiveness of Carbon-Based Nonwoven Fabrics by H₂ Plasma Treatment
p.120

A Bibliographic Historical Analysis on Geopolymer as a Substitute for Portland Cement
p.127

Preparation and Numerical Simulation of Heat Transfer Performance for Methyl Palmitate /Expanded Graphite Phase Change Composite
p.132

PCL Scaffold for Osteochondral Defect Treatment
p.141

Testing of Fibrous Membranes with Different Scaffold Morphology for Development of 3D Skin Model
p.148

The Effect of Alternative Solvents on the Biocompatibility of Centrifugally Spun Poly-ε-Caprolactone
p.155

Coaxial Nanofibrous Scaffold Prepared Using Centrifugal Spinning as a Drug Delivery System for Skeletal Tissue Engineering
p.162

Squeeze Cast Mg-Zn Alloys for Bioapplications: Tensile Properties and Microstructure
p.169

Development of a Composite Material Based on Polymers Polydimethylsiloxane and Polytetrafluoroethylene Use in Human Prosthetic Coatings
p.177

HomeKey Engineering MaterialsKey Engineering Materials Vol. 834The Effect of Alternative Solvents on the...

The Effect of Alternative Solvents on the Biocompatibility of Centrifugally Spun Poly-ε-Caprolactone

Abstract:

Suitable scaffolds for tissue engineering should promote several features that enable regeneration of the damaged tissue in vivo. In general, nanoto microfibrous meshes resemble extracellular matrix and support cell adhesion; three dimensional scaffolds, together with interconnected pores, promote cell migration into the volume of the scaffolds. Furthermore, the scaffold should be biodegradable with no harmful byproducts and easy to produce. Centrifugal spinning is an alternative method, to widely used electrospinning method, to produce 3D scaffolds suitable for use in tissue engineering. In this study, we tested different molecular weights and solvent systems of poly-ε-caprolactone (PCL) that were produced by the centrifugal spinning method. The produced scaffolds were characterized and seeded with Saos2 osteosarcoma cell line to verify their biocompatibility. We concluded from the results that group 4 scaffold, produced from a mixture of two molecular weights of PCL dissolved in acetic acid/formic acid, supported cell adhesion, proliferation and metabolic activity the most out of all the tested scaffolds. The other PCL scaffolds were prepared either from one type of molecular weight of PCL or chloroform was solely used to produce the scaffolds.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Functional Materials and Advanced Technologies

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volume 834)

Pages:

155-161

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.834.155

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

March 2020

Authors:

Vera Lukášová*, Matej Buzgo, Evzen Amler, Eva Filová, Michala Rampichová

Keywords:

Biocompatibility, Centrifugal Spinning, Fibrous Scaffold, Poly-ε-Caprolactone, Solvent

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions:

Request Permissions

* - Corresponding Author

References

[1] M. Rampichová, M. Buzgo, J. Chvojka, E. Prosecká, O. Kofroňová and E. Amler: Cell adhesion & migration Vol. (2014), pp.36-41.

DOI: 10.4161/cam.27477

Google Scholar

[2] M. Buzgo, M. Rampichova, K. Vocetkova, V. Sovkova, V. Lukasova, M. Doupnik, A. Mickova, F. Rustichelli and E. Amler: RSC Advances Vol. (2017), pp.1215-1228.

DOI: 10.1039/c6ra26606a

Google Scholar

[3] M. Rampichová, J. Chvojka, V. Jenčová, T. Kubíková, Z. Tonar, J. Erben, M. Buzgo, J. Daňková, A. Litvinec, K. Vocetková, M. Plencner, E. Prosecká, V. Sovková, V. Lukášová, M. Králíčková, D. Lukáš, and E. Amler: Biomedical Materials Vol. (2018), p.025004.

DOI: 10.1088/1748-605x/aa9717

Google Scholar

[4] E. Rezabeigi, P.M. Wood-Adams and R.A.L. Drew: Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials Vol. (2017), pp.2433-2442.

Google Scholar

[5] M. Zhou, A.M. Smith, A.K. Das, N.W. Hodson, R.F. Collins, R.V. Ulijn and J.E. Gough: Biomaterials Vol. (2009), pp.2523-2530.

Google Scholar

[6] J. Doshi and D.H. Reneker: Journal of Electrostatics Vol. (1995), pp.151-160.

Google Scholar

[7] S. Lyu, C. Huang, H. Yang and X. Zhang: Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society Vol. (2013), pp.1382-1389.

Google Scholar

[8] A.L. Sisson, D. Ekinci and A. Lendlein: Polymer Vol. (2013), pp.4333-4350.

Google Scholar

[9] L. Zhao, J. Du, Y. Duan, Y.n. Zang, H. Zhang, C. Yang, F. Cao and G. Zhai: Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces Vol. (2012), pp.101-108.

DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.04.017

Google Scholar

[10] L. Van der Schueren, B. De Schoenmaker, Ö.I. Kalaoglu and K. De Clerck: European Polymer Journal Vol. (2011), pp.1256-1263.

DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2011.02.025

Google Scholar

[11] P. Stafiej, F. Küng, D. Thieme, M. Czugala, F.E. Kruse, D.W. Schubert and T.A. Fuchsluger: Materials Science and Engineering: C Vol. (2017), pp.764-770.

DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.10.058

Google Scholar