journal article·2016-11

Assessment of degradation and biocompatibility of electrodeposited chitosan and chitosan–carbon nanotube tubular implants

Katarzyna Nawrotek, Michał Tylman, Patrick Decherchi, Tanguy Marqueste, Karolina Rudnicka, Justyna Gatkowska, Marek Wieczorek

Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Designing three‐dimensional tubular materials made of chitosan is still a challenging task. Availability of such forms is highly desired by tissue engineering, especially peripheral nerve tissue engineering. Aiming at this problem, we use an electrodeposition phenomenon in order to obtain chitosan and chitosan–carbon nanotube hydrogel tubular implants. The in vitro biocompatibility of the fabricated structures is assessed using a mouse hippocampal cell line (mHippoE‐18). As both implants do not induce significant cytotoxicity, they are next subjected to in vitro degradation studies in the environment simulating in vivo conditions for specified periods of time: 7, 14, and 28 days. The mass loss of implants indicates their stability at the tested time period; therefore, the materials are subcutaneously implanted in Sprague Dawley rats. The explants are collected after 7, 14, and 28 days. The assessment of composition and changes in tissues surrounding the implanted materials is made in respect to surrounding tissue thickness as well as the number of blood vessels, macrophages, lymphocytes, and neutrophils. No symptoms of acute inflammation are noticed at any point in time. The observed regular healing process allows concluding that both chitosan and chitosan–carbon hydrogel tubular implants are biocompatible with high application potential in tissue engineering. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 104A: 2701–2711, 2016.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Neuroscience and Neural Engineering · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials

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

Affiliations

Department of Process Thermodynamics Faculty of Process and Environmental Engineering, Lodz University of Technology Wolczanska 213 90‐924 Lodz Poland

Aix‐Marseille Université (AMU) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut des Sciences du Mouvement (UMR 7287), Equipe Plasticité des Systèmes Nerveux et Musculaire, Parc Scientifique et Technologique de Luminy CC910 ‐ 163, Avenue de Luminy F‐13288 Marseille cedex 09 France

Department of Immunology and Infectious Biology Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz Banacha 12/16 90‐237 Lodz Poland

Department of Immunoparasitology Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz Banacha 12/16 90‐237 Lodz Poland

Department of Neurobiology Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz Pomorska 141/143 90‐236 Lodz Poland

Funding

Foundation for Polish Science

References (33)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1242/jcs.00606410.1242/jcs.006064 ↗
2. 10.1016/S0962-8924(98)01362-210.1016/S0962-8924(98)01362-2 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.02.00310.1016/j.tibtech.2015.02.003 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.addr.2012.07.01410.1016/j.addr.2012.07.014 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.01.01910.1016/j.actbio.2014.01.019 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.addr.2012.03.00910.1016/j.addr.2012.03.009 ↗
7. 10.1007/s10439-013-0912-510.1007/s10439-013-0912-5 ↗
8. 10.1163/15685620878372098510.1163/156856208783720985 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.02.00810.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.02.008 ↗
10. 10.1002/jbm.a.3291210.1002/jbm.a.32912 ↗
11. 10.1002/jbm.a.3532010.1002/jbm.a.35320 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.07.00310.1016/j.actbio.2013.07.003 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2015.06.00110.1016/j.pneurobio.2015.06.001 ↗
14. 10.1186/1423-0127-16-10810.1186/1423-0127-16-108 ↗
15. 10.1163/156856205399249610.1163/1568562053992496 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.09.10510.1016/j.carbpol.2015.09.105 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.02.01210.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.02.012 ↗
18. ISO 10993‐5:2009. Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity. Available at:http://www.iso.org.
19. Is MLC phosphorylation essential for the recovery from ROCK inhibition in glioma C6 cells?
20. 10.1016/S0009-9120(89)80031-110.1016/S0009-9120(89)80031-1 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.03310.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.033 ↗
22. 10.1098/rsif.2011.043810.1098/rsif.2011.0438 ↗
23. 10.1002/micr.2236210.1002/micr.22362 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.02910.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.029 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.08.04010.1016/j.neulet.2008.08.040 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.04210.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.042 ↗
27. 10.1002/micr.2241810.1002/micr.22418 ↗
28. 10.1002/jbm.a.3059310.1002/jbm.a.30593 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.09.02910.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.09.029 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.08.00910.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.08.009 ↗
31. 10.1369/002215541453099410.1369/0022155414530994 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.11.00210.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.11.002 ↗
33. 10.1155/2015/23750710.1155/2015/237507 ↗