4.2 Article

Production of Composite Scaffold Containing Silk Fibroin, Chitosan, and Gelatin for 3D Cell Culture and Bone Tissue Regeneration

Journal

MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR
Volume 23, Issue -, Pages 5311-5320

Publisher

INT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, INC
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.905085

Keywords

Chitosan; Fibroins; Gelatin; Tissue Engineering; Tissue Scaffolds

Funding

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [8167090574]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Bone tissue engineering, a powerful tool to treat bone defects, is highly dependent on use of scaffolds. Both silk fibroin (SF) and chitosan (Cs) are biocompatible and actively studied for reconstruction of tissue engineering. Gelatin (Gel) is also widely applied in the biomedical field due to its low antigenicity and physicochemical stability. Material/Methods: In this study, 4 different types of scaffolds were constructed - SF, SF/Cs, SF/Gel, and SF/Cs/Gel - and we compared their physical and chemical properties as well as biological characterization of these scaffolds to determine the most suitable scaffold for use in bone regeneration. First, these scaffolds were produced via chemical cross-linking method and freeze-drying technique. Next, the characterization of internal structure was studied using scanning electron microscopy and the porosity was evaluated by liquid displacement method. Then, we compared physicochemical properties such as water absorption rate and degradation property. Finally, MC3T3-E1 cells were inoculated on the scaffolds to study the biocompatibility and osteogenesis of the threedimensional (3D) scaffolds in vitro. Results: The composite scaffold formed by all 3 components was the best for use in bone regeneration. Conclusions: We conclude that the best scaffold among the 4 studied for MC3T3-E1 cells is our SF/Cs/Gel scaffold, suggesting a new choice for bone regeneration that can be used to treat bone defects or fractures in clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available