Microstructural and mechanical study of PCL coated Mg scaffolds
Source abstract
Abstract
In recent years, attention has been focused on the magnesium (Mg) as a promising material in biodegradable metallic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Since an orthopedic scaffold is supposed to repair and regenerate fractured bones, its mechanical integrity is vital throughout the healing process. In this study, a biocompatible polymeric layer made of polycaprolactone (PCL) in different concentrations of 3% w/v and 6% w/v was coated on the surface of Mg scaffolds. The structural characteristics and mechanical behaviour of the Mg scaffolds during the immersion in physiological saline solution (PSS) were investigated. According to our results, the PCL coating hindered the diminution of mechanical stability of scaffolds to provide adequate support for bone healing. Specifically, scaffold coated with 3% w/v and 6% w/v PCL demonstrated 24 and 100% improvement in the elastic modulus and 41 and 83% enhancement in compressive strength respectively, after 24 h immersion in PSS, compare to the uncoated scaffold. Thus, PCL coating of Mg scaffolds may be a promising approach in the development of mechanically stable bone scaffolds.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Magnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Aluminum Alloys Composites Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Materials Science and Engineering Helmerich Advanced Technology Research Center, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, OK 74106, USA
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Helmerich Advanced Technology Research Center, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, OK 74106, USA
School of Chemical Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1371/journal.pone.006163310.1371/journal.pone.0061633 ↗
2. 10.1166/jbn.2011.131010.1166/jbn.2011.1310 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.matchar.2010.09.00810.1016/j.matchar.2010.09.008 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.04.06410.1016/j.ceramint.2012.04.064 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2013.03.14210.1016/j.jallcom.2013.03.142 ↗
6. Shahini A · Int. J. Nanomed. · 2014 · 9 · 167
7. 10.1166/jbn.2014.178310.1166/jbn.2014.1783 ↗
8. 10.1002/jbm.a.3498410.1002/jbm.a.34984 ↗
9. Tahmasbi Rad A · J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A · 2014
10. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.07.05810.1016/j.ceramint.2012.07.058 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.02.09710.1016/j.ceramint.2012.02.097 ↗
12. 10.1016/S0167-577X(03)00500-710.1016/S0167-577X(03)00500-7 ↗
13. 10.3390/ma203079010.3390/ma2030790 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.09.16010.1016/j.apsusc.2013.09.160 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.12.01110.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.12.011 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2013.08.02710.1016/j.ceramint.2013.08.027 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.matlet.2013.09.06810.1016/j.matlet.2013.09.068 ↗
18. Razavi M · Res. Rev. Mater. Sci. Chem. · 2012 · 1 · 15
19. 10.1016/j.matlet.2010.07.07910.1016/j.matlet.2010.07.079 ↗
20. 10.2147/IJN.S4265910.2147/IJN.S42659 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.matlet.2012.08.01310.1016/j.matlet.2012.08.013 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.matlet.2013.01.11110.1016/j.matlet.2013.01.111 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.03.05510.1016/j.ceramint.2012.03.055 ↗
24. 10.5772/5105810.5772/51058 ↗
25. 10.1166/jbn.2013.161910.1166/jbn.2013.1619 ↗
26. 10.1002/app.1981.07026112410.1002/app.1981.070261124 ↗
27. 10.1016/0142-9612(81)90060-010.1016/0142-9612(81)90060-0 ↗
28. 10.1021/la00049a02810.1021/la00049a028 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.06.02810.1016/j.actbio.2009.06.028 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.msec.2008.04.00110.1016/j.msec.2008.04.001 ↗