A comparison study of different physical treatments on cartilage matrix derived porous scaffolds for tissue engineering applications
Source abstract
Abstract
Native cartilage matrix derived (CMD) scaffolds from various animal and human sources have drawn attention in cartilage tissue engineering due to the demonstrable presence of bioactive components. Different chemical and physical treatments have been employed to enhance the micro-architecture of CMD scaffolds. In this study we have assessed the typical effects of physical cross-linking methods, namely ultraviolet (UV) light, dehydrothermal (DHT) treatment, and combinations of them on bovine articular CMD porous scaffolds with three different matrix concentrations (5%, 15% and 30%) to assess the relative strengths of each treatment. Our findings suggest that UV and UV-DHT treatments on 15% CMD scaffolds can yield architecturally optimal scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Osteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Silk-based biomaterials and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (40)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1088/1468-6996/13/4/04300210.1088/1468-6996/13/4/043002 ↗
2. 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-610.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-6 ↗
3. 10.1002/bit.2476410.1002/bit.24764 ↗
4. 10.1097/00003086-200110001-0002410.1097/00003086-200110001-00024 ↗
5. Moutos F T · Biorheology · 2008 · 45 · 50110.3233/BIR-2008-0491 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.03.02610.1016/j.matdes.2013.03.026 ↗
7. 10.1089/ten.tec.2009.044410.1089/ten.tec.2009.0444 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.04.02710.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.04.027 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.06310.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.063 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.03710.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.037 ↗
11. 10.1089/ten.tea.2009.039810.1089/ten.tea.2009.0398 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.00510.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.005 ↗
13. 10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00067-910.1016/S0142-9612(01)00067-9 ↗
14. 10.1002/jbm.a.3195510.1002/jbm.a.31955 ↗
15. 10.1089/ten.tea.2010.059010.1089/ten.tea.2010.0590 ↗
16. 10.3390/jfb304079910.3390/jfb3040799 ↗
17. 10.1039/c4ay00666f10.1039/c4ay00666f ↗
18. 10.1111/j.1745-7270.2007.00320.x10.1111/j.1745-7270.2007.00320.x ↗
19. 10.1007/s13758-012-0038-610.1007/s13758-012-0038-6 ↗
20. 10.1590/s0102-8650200400070000410.1590/s0102-86502004000700004 ↗
21. 10.1385/1-59259-821-8:12710.1385/1-59259-821-8:127 ↗
22. 10.1089/ten.tec.2009.042210.1089/ten.tec.2009.0422 ↗
23. 10.1039/c2sm26126j10.1039/c2sm26126j ↗
24. 10.4067/S0717-9707200300020001310.4067/S0717-97072003000200013 ↗
25. Saarakkala S · 2010 · 403
26. 10.1016/j.molstruc.2004.07.04110.1016/j.molstruc.2004.07.041 ↗
27. 10.1002/1097-0282(2001)62:1<1::AID-BIP10>3.0.CO;2-O10.1002/1097-0282(2001)62:1<1::AID-BIP10>3.0.CO;2-O ↗
28. PramanikS 2014 Design and development of potential tissue engineering scaffolds from structurally different longitudinal parts of a bovine-femur Scientific Reports410.1038/srep05843 ↗
29. Gilbert D L · 1988
30. 10.1016/j.msec.2011.03.00710.1016/j.msec.2011.03.007 ↗
31. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19970314)63:11<1493::AID-APP11>3.0.CO;2-310.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19970314)63:11<1493::AID-APP11>3.0.CO;2-3 ↗
32. 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-463610.1002/(ISSN)1097-4636 ↗
33. 10.1002/cyto.a.1001310.1002/cyto.a.10013 ↗
34. 10.1002/cyto.99010060610.1002/cyto.990100606 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.12.00410.1016/j.tibtech.2012.12.004 ↗
36. 10.2217/rme.10.8710.2217/rme.10.87 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.03710.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.037 ↗
38. 10.1089/ten.tea.2008.025310.1089/ten.tea.2008.0253 ↗
39. SealBOteroTPanitchA 2001 Polymeric biomaterials for tissue and organ regeneration Mater. Sci. Eng. R: Rep. 34 147 23010.1016/S0927-796X(01)00035-3 ↗
40. 10.1002/jbm.121710.1002/jbm.1217 ↗