4.8 Article

Soft tissue reactions evoked by implanted gallium phosphide

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 29, 期 35, 页码 4598-4604

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.08.028

关键词

GaP; Foreign-body response; In vivo test; Soft tissue; Immunohistochemistry; Nanowires

资金

  1. The Royal Physiographic Society in Lund
  2. The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation [KAW 2004-0119]
  3. Swedish Research Council [600012701]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neural devices may play an important role in the diagnosis and therapy of several clinical conditions, such as stroke, trauma or neurodegenerative disorders, by facilitating motor and pain control. Such interfaces, chronically implanted in the CNS, need to be biocompatible and have the ability to stimulate and record nerve signals. However, neural devices of today are not fully optimized. Nanostructured surfaces may improve electrical properties and lower evoked tissue responses. Vertical gallium phosphide (GaP) nanowires epitaxially grown from a GaP surface is one way of creating nanostructured electrodes. Thus, we chose to study the soft tissue reactions evoked by GaP surfaces. GaP and the control material titanium (Ti) were implanted in the rat abdominal wall for evaluation of tissue reactions after 1, 6, or 12 weeks. The foreign-body response was evaluated by measuring the reactive capsule thickness and by quantification of ED1-positive macrophages and total cells in the capsule. Furthermore, the concentration of Ga was measured in blood, brain, liver and kidneys. Statistically significant differences were noticed between GaP and Ti at 12 weeks for total and ED1-positive cell densities in the capsule. The chemical analysis showed that the concentration of Ga in brain, liver and kidneys increased during 12 weeks of implantation, indicating loss of Ga from the implant. Taken together, our results show that the biocompatible properties of GaP are worse than those of the well-documented biomaterial Ti. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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