journal article·2019-05

Tailor‐made multicomponent electrospun polyurethane nanofibrous composite scaffold comprising olive oil, honey, and propolis for bone tissue engineering

Saravana Kumar Jaganathan, Mohan Prasath Mani, Ahmad Fauzi Ismail, Praseetha Prabhakaran, Gomathi Nageswaran

Polymer Composites· Volume 40· Issue 5
Publisher page

Abstract

The treatment for the bone diseases or defects such as tumor ablation, bone cysts and osteolysis were still challenging in clinical applications. Recently, the bone tissue engineering has emerged as a potential option for the treatment of bone defects. In this study, the nanofibrous composite scaffold consisting of polyurethane, olive oil, honey and propolis were fabricated through electrospinning method. The morphology of the nanofibrous scaffold indicated that nanofibers diameters were reduced with the addition of olive oil, honey and propolis into the Polyurethane (PU). The contact angle measurements showed that the behavior of PU/olive oil was found to hydrophobic (114° ± 1.528) and the PU/olive oil/honey/propolis scaffold rendered hydrophilic behavior (60° ± 1.528). FTIR and TG analysis revealed the interactions of PU with olive oil, honey/propolis and increased thermal stability of the composites. Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) analysis displayed reduced surface roughness of the fabricated nanocomposite (PU/olive oil—469 nm and PU/olive oil/honey/propolis—449 nm) than the pristine PU (576 nm). The incorporation of olive oil, honey, and propolis resulted in the enhancement of the tensile strength (PU/olive oil—12.91 MPa and PU/olive oil/honey/propolis—14.346 MPa) compared with the pristine PU (7.12 MPa) as revealed in the mechanical testing. The blood clotting time of PU/olive oil (Activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)—175 ±4 s and Partial thromboplastin time (PT)—103.3 ±3.512) was enhanced than pristine PU suggesting its improved anticoagulant behavior. Further, the developed scaffold showed low hemolytic index percentage (PU/olive oil—1.41% and PU/olive oil/honey/propolis—0.95%) than the control (2.48%) indicating its safety with RBC. Cytotoxicity test of the electrospun scaffold with human dermal fibroblast (HDF) cells using 3‐(4,5‐dimethylthiazol‐2‐yl)‐5‐(3‐carboxymethoxyphenyl)‐2‐(4‐sulfophenyl)‐2H tetrazolium assay demonstrated the non‐toxic and enhanced cell viability rates of HDF cells in developed scaffold than the pristine PU. Hence, the PU/olive oil/honey/propolis nanocomposite possessing better mechanical, physio‐chemical and biological properties might serve as a plausible candidate for bone tissue engineering. POLYM. COMPOS., 2018. © 2018 Society of Plastics Engineers
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department for Management of Science and Technology Development Ton Duc Thang University Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam

Faculty of Applied Sciences Ton Duc Thang University Ho Chi Minh city Vietnam

IJNUTM Cardiovascular Engineering center, School of Biomedical Engineering and Health Sciences Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai 81300 Johor Malaysia

School of Biomedical Engineering and Health Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai 81310 Malaysia

Advanced Membrane Technology Research Centre (AMTEC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai 81310 Johor Malaysia

Department of Biosciences, Faculty of Science Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai 81310 Johor Malaysia

Department of Chemistry Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology Trivandrum 695547 Kerala India

Funding

Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia · Ministry of Higher Education

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s10856-014-5149-910.1007/s10856-014-5149-9 ↗
2. Nardone V. · Int. J. Mater. · 2012 · 2012 · 1
3. 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.07.01210.1016/j.actbio.2009.07.012 ↗
4. Rajzer I. · Fibres. Text. East. Eur. · 2011 · 84 · 66
5. Hassan M.I. · J. Nanomater. · 2014 · 2014 · 8
6. 10.1177/088532821351393410.1177/0885328213513934 ↗
7. 10.1007/s00586-008-0745-310.1007/s00586-008-0745-3 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.addr.2007.08.04110.1016/j.addr.2007.08.041 ↗
9. Pillai C.K.S. · Trends. Biomater. Artif. Organs. · 2009 · 22 · 179
10. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.01110.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.011 ↗
11. Luong N.D. · Scaffold. Sci. Eng. · 2008 · 28 · 1242
12. 10.1002/jbm.b.1005810.1002/jbm.b.10058 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.10.02610.1016/j.foodchem.2010.10.026 ↗
14. 10.3390/antiox403054810.3390/antiox4030548 ↗
15. 10.1155/2013/30824910.1155/2013/308249 ↗
16. 10.3390/molecules1901007810.3390/molecules19010078 ↗
17. Wheeler M.M. · Sci. Reports. · 2014 · 4 · 1
18. Eteraf‐Oskouei T. · Iranian. J. Basic. Med. Sci. · 2013 · 16 · 731
19. 10.1016/j.msec.2014.07.06210.1016/j.msec.2014.07.062 ↗
20. Ayyar M. · Biomed. Eng/Biomedizinische. Technik. · 2017 · 63
21. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2016.11.00110.1016/j.bioactmat.2016.11.001 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.nano.2014.01.01010.1016/j.nano.2014.01.010 ↗
23. 10.1177/088532821140193210.1177/0885328211401932 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2012.09.02910.1016/j.colsurfa.2012.09.029 ↗
25. Tarun K. · Ind. J. Fiber. Text. Res. · 2012 · 3 · 127
26. 10.1016/j.cej.2012.05.00510.1016/j.cej.2012.05.005 ↗
27. 10.1088/1748-6041/4/4/04500210.1088/1748-6041/4/4/045002 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.02.00410.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.02.004 ↗
29. 10.3390/polym905016310.3390/polym9050163 ↗
30. 10.1002/jbm.a.3605810.1002/jbm.a.36058 ↗
31. 10.1002/jbm.a.3536710.1002/jbm.a.35367 ↗
32. Szycher M. · 1991
33. 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00046-210.1016/S0142-9612(03)00046-2 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.07.03210.1016/j.actbio.2012.07.032 ↗
35. 10.3390/polym905018310.3390/polym9050183 ↗