4.6 Article

3D Printing of Polycaprolactone-Polyaniline Electroactive Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma13030512

关键词

3D printing; electroactive scaffold; polyaniline; tissue engineering

资金

  1. Indonesian Ministry for Research, Technology and Higher Education Overseas Collaboration Research Fund [436.11/I1.C08/PL-DIKTI/2018]
  2. United Kingdom's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Doctoral Training in Regenerative Medicine [EP/L014904/1]
  3. Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Doctoral Training in Regenerative Medicine [EP/L014904/1]
  4. World Class University program, Institut Teknologi Bandung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrostimulation and electroactive scaffolds can positively influence and guide cellular behaviour and thus has been garnering interest as a key tissue engineering strategy. The development of conducting polymers such as polyaniline enables the fabrication of conductive polymeric composite scaffolds. In this study, we report on the initial development of a polycaprolactone scaffold incorporating different weight loadings of a polyaniline microparticle filler. The scaffolds are fabricated using screw-assisted extrusion-based 3D printing and are characterised for their morphological, mechanical, conductivity, and preliminary biological properties. The conductivity of the polycaprolactone scaffolds increases with the inclusion of polyaniline. The in vitro cytocompatibility of the scaffolds was assessed using human adipose-derived stem cells to determine cell viability and proliferation up to 21 days. A cytotoxicity threshold was reached at 1% wt. polyaniline loading. Scaffolds with 0.1% wt. polyaniline showed suitable compressive strength (6.45 +/- 0.16 MPa) and conductivity (2.46 +/- 0.65 x 10(-4) S/cm) for bone tissue engineering applications and demonstrated the highest cell viability at day 1 (88%) with cytocompatibility for up to 21 days in cell culture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据