journal article·2018-09-22

Comparison of additive effects on the PVA/starch cryogels: Synthesis, characterization, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity studies

Seda Ceylan, Dilek Göktürk, Didem Demir, M. Damla Özdemir, Nimet Bölgen

Publisher page

Abstract

The research goal of this study is to produce suitable scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Different ratios of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)/starch (90:10, 70:30, 50:50) and crosslinking methods have been used to prepare cryogels. Chemically crosslinked cryogels were synthesized using glutaraldehyde as the crosslinking agent. For the physically crosslinked cryogels, sodium dodecyl sulfate was used during cryogelation as the foaming agent. Chemical structure and pore morphology were demonstrated by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Swelling ratio and degradation profile of the scaffolds were also determined. 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazoyl-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay and SEM were used to investigate the biocompatibility of the scaffolds and cell morphology. Genotoxicity test was performed to show DNA fragmentation. The overall results demonstrated that PVA/starch cryogels could have potentially appealing application as scaffolds for tissue engineering applications and additives affect the architecture and characteristic properties of the cryogels.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Hydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties

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

Affiliations

Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey

Department of Bioengineering, Adana Science and Technology University, Adana, Turkey

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. Lee K. Y. · J. Am. Chem. Soc. · 2001 · 101 · 203
2. 10.1016/j.msec.2014.12.01610.1016/j.msec.2014.12.016 ↗
3. Gualandi C. · 2013
4. 10.3144/expresspolymlett.2009.4610.3144/expresspolymlett.2009.46 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.06.02010.1016/j.carbpol.2013.06.020 ↗
6. Râpă M. · J. Environ. Res. Prot. · 2014 · 11 · 34
7. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.12.03110.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.12.031 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2015.02.01210.1016/j.polymertesting.2015.02.012 ↗
9. 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00211-810.1016/S0142-9612(00)00211-8 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.07.00910.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.07.009 ↗
11. 10.1002/term.181310.1002/term.1813 ↗
12. 10.1002/jbm.a.3439410.1002/jbm.a.34394 ↗
13. 10.1080/1060132070156114810.1080/10601320701561148 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2013.07.07910.1016/j.ceramint.2013.07.079 ↗
15. 10.1007/s11671-009-9429-010.1007/s11671-009-9429-0 ↗
16. Zorn-Kruppa M. · ALTEX · 2004 · 21 · 129
17. 10.1016/j.mspro.2012.06.06510.1016/j.mspro.2012.06.065 ↗
18. 10.1080/00914037.2012.71086210.1080/00914037.2012.710862 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.06.03710.1016/j.carbpol.2016.06.037 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.12.06110.1016/j.carbpol.2015.12.061 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2009.01.00310.1016/j.jmbbm.2009.01.003 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.05.00310.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.05.003 ↗
23. 10.1080/1060132090325202510.1080/10601320903252025 ↗
24. 10.1590/S1516-1439200600020001410.1590/S1516-14392006000200014 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.12.06710.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.12.067 ↗
26. 10.5267/j.ccl.2013.05.00110.5267/j.ccl.2013.05.001 ↗
27. 10.1002/app.3113610.1002/app.31136 ↗
28. 10.1093/rb/rbu00910.1093/rb/rbu009 ↗
29. 10.1002/jbm.a.3567110.1002/jbm.a.35671 ↗
30. 10.1016/S0278-6915(03)00003-610.1016/S0278-6915(03)00003-6 ↗
31. 10.4238/2015.March.6.1410.4238/2015.March.6.14 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.micron.2007.06.01610.1016/j.micron.2007.06.016 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.08.03710.1016/j.carbpol.2016.08.037 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.06.04310.1016/j.msec.2016.06.043 ↗
35. 10.1089/10763270432306182510.1089/107632704323061825 ↗