journal article·2021-11

Preclinical assessment of chitosan–polyvinyl alcohol–graphene oxide nanocomposite scaffolds as a wound dressing

Arash Montazeri, Fariba Saeedi, Yaser Bahari, Ahmad Ahmadi Daryakenari

Polymers and Polymer Composites· Volume 29· Issue 9_suppl
Publisher page

Abstract

The present research aimed to examine the biological properties of chitosan (CS)–polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) scaffolds reinforced with graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets, as wound dressings. The scaffolds were characterized by various techniques. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and thermogravimetry analyses (TGAs) were used to investigate distribution of the GO within the polymer. The viscoelastic properties were evaluated by dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA) to examine the quality of a wound dressing. In vitro and in vivo studies were conducted to assess the biocompatibility of the scaffolds as wound dressing. The cell viability and proliferation results indicated that mouse fibroblast cells (L929) could adhere on the 50CS–50PVA/3 wt% GO scaffold. Herewith, the fabricated CS–PVA–GO nanocomposite scaffolds are suggested as promising biomaterials for skin tissue engineering and wound dressing.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Graphene and Nanomaterials Applications · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications

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

Affiliations

Nanotechnology Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.15406/jnmr.2016.04.0008810.15406/jnmr.2016.04.00088 ↗
2. 10.1089/ten.tec.2019.034410.1089/ten.tec.2019.0344 ↗
3. 10.1007/s40257-013-0046-410.1007/s40257-013-0046-4 ↗
4. 10.1007/12_2011_11810.1007/12_2011_118 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.02010.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.020 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2011.11.00710.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2011.11.007 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.02.00110.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.02.001 ↗
8. 10.1007/s00706-009-0197-410.1007/s00706-009-0197-4 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.12.04910.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.12.049 ↗
10. 10.1002/adma.20100106810.1002/adma.201001068 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.optcom.2016.04.03010.1016/j.optcom.2016.04.030 ↗
12. Simsek EB · J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng · 2017 · 70 · 91
13. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.12.04910.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.12.049 ↗
14. 10.1177/096739112096237510.1177/0967391120962375 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.10.08510.1016/j.carbpol.2013.10.085 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.02.02110.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.02.021 ↗
17. 10.1007/s00128-011-0304-110.1007/s00128-011-0304-1 ↗
18. 10.1021/la102703b10.1021/la102703b ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jece.2016.02.03510.1016/j.jece.2016.02.035 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2013.07.00210.1016/j.foodhyd.2013.07.002 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.02.00110.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.02.001 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.04.02110.1016/j.carbpol.2010.04.021 ↗
23. 10.3390/c202001010.3390/c2020010 ↗
24. Acurio E · Adv Mater Tech · 2017 · 1 · 9
25. 10.1016/j.physb.2010.01.09510.1016/j.physb.2010.01.095 ↗
26. 10.1016/0142-9612(87)90008-110.1016/0142-9612(87)90008-1 ↗
27. 10.1002/jbm.b.3048410.1002/jbm.b.30484 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.11.19110.1016/j.apsusc.2017.11.191 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.toxlet.2010.11.01610.1016/j.toxlet.2010.11.016 ↗
30. 10.3233/BME-14103710.3233/BME-141037 ↗
31. Khorsand Zak A · J Res Many-body Syst · 2017 · 7 · 61
32. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.07110.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.071 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2010.03.02410.1016/j.ijpharm.2010.03.024 ↗
34. 10.3390/biom903010910.3390/biom9030109 ↗
35. 10.3390/molecules2310265110.3390/molecules23102651 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.addr.2016.03.00710.1016/j.addr.2016.03.007 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.03.03110.1016/j.compositesb.2017.03.031 ↗