journal article·2020-11

Fabrication and characterization of electrospun polyurethane blended with dietary grapes for skin tissue engineering

Mohan Prasath Mani, Saravana Kumar Jaganathan

Journal of Industrial Textiles· Volume 50· Issue 5
Publisher page

Abstract

The tissue-engineered skin has emerged as a plausible alternative approach to the traditional wound dressing owing to its inherent advantages. Further, in tissue engineering applications, fibrous scaffold obtained through textile technologies is widely attractive. The present study focused on the fabrication of electrospun textile polyurethane wound dressing scaffold incorporated with grape extract. The fabricated composites showed smooth as well as reduced fiber (730 ± 127 nm) and pore (873 ± 51 nm) diameter than the control polyurethane (fiber diameter –890 ± 117 and pore diameter –1064 ± 74 nm) as revealed in the scanning electron microscopy. The formation of hydrogen bond in Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy revealed the interaction between the polyurethane and grape. The addition of grape enhanced the wettability behavior (86° ± 2) and the surface roughness (469 nm) of the polyurethane membrane. Thermal gravimetric analysis and mechanical testing revealed the enhancement of thermal and tensile strength with the incorporation of the grape into the polyurethane matrix. The in vitro blood compatibility and cytocompatibility studies revealed enhanced antithrombogenicity behavior and the non-toxic nature to human dermal fibroblast cells for the fabricated composites than the pristine polyurethane. Hence, the addition of grape into the polyurethane matrix had enhanced the physicochemical characteristics and biocompatibility parameters which could promote this candidate as a valid alternative for skin tissue engineering regeneration.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Wound Healing and Treatments · Silk-based biomaterials and applications

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

Affiliations

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

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, Malaysia

References (47)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/wnan.10010.1002/wnan.100 ↗
2. 10.1177/088391151349462510.1177/0883911513494625 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.01.00210.1016/j.actbio.2007.01.002 ↗
4. 10.1088/1748-6041/7/4/04500510.1088/1748-6041/7/4/045005 ↗
5. Falanga V, Faria K and Bollenbach T. Bioengineered skin constructs. In: Lanza R, Langer R and Vacanti J (eds) Principles of tissue engineering . Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 2014, pp.1619–1643.10.1016/B978-0-12-398358-9.00077-X ↗
6. 10.1155/2011/29060210.1155/2011/290602 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.03.00310.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.03.003 ↗
8. 10.1002/mame.20180021810.1002/mame.201800218 ↗
9. Shi X · J Nanomater · 2015 · 16 · 122
10. 10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00178-710.1016/S0266-3538(03)00178-7 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.polymer.2008.09.01410.1016/j.polymer.2008.09.014 ↗
12. Shen Z · BioMed Res Int · 2015 · 2015 · 1
13. Jaganathan SK and Fauzi Ismail A. Production and hemocompatibility assessment of novel electrospun polyurethane nanofibers loaded with dietary virgin coconut oil for vascular graft applications. J Bioact Comp Polym 2018; 33(2): 210–223.10.1177/0883911517720815 ↗
14. 10.1007/s00345005000210.1007/s003450050002 ↗
15. 10.1002/adem.20070028710.1002/adem.200700287 ↗
16. 10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00370-810.1016/S0142-9612(02)00370-8 ↗
17. Eli S, Thomas FW. Flexible resilient cellular polyurethane resin products. United States patent US 1959, 2,894,919.
18. 10.2147/IJN.S11226510.2147/IJN.S112265 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.msec.2014.07.06210.1016/j.msec.2014.07.062 ↗
20. 10.1177/088391151879228810.1177/0883911518792288 ↗
21. 10.2147/IJN.S5411310.2147/IJN.S54113 ↗
22. Dharmadhikari M · Vineyard Vintage View Mo State Univ · 1994 · 9 · 3
23. 10.3390/ijms1102062210.3390/ijms11020622 ↗
24. Karami S · Biomed Res Clin Pract · 2018 · 3 · 1
25. Nirmala JG · Int J Pharm Pharm Sci · 2011 · 3 · 242
26. Feldman DS · J Biomed Imaging Bioeng · 2017 · 1 · 35
27. 10.3390/membranes103024910.3390/membranes1030249 ↗
28. 10.1007/s10965-018-1543-110.1007/s10965-018-1543-1 ↗
29. Shi X · J Nanomater · 2015 · 16 · 122
30. 10.1088/1748-6041/6/5/05500110.1088/1748-6041/6/5/055001 ↗
31. 10.1007/BF0321890310.1007/BF03218903 ↗
32. 10.1007/s00289-014-1268-110.1007/s00289-014-1268-1 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2012.09.02910.1016/j.colsurfa.2012.09.029 ↗
34. 10.1039/C6TA10474F10.1039/C6TA10474F ↗
35. 10.1002/adem.20170061710.1002/adem.201700617 ↗
36. 10.1002/admi.20170019010.1002/admi.201700190 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.10.07010.1016/j.carbpol.2013.10.070 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.11.01410.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.11.014 ↗
39. Gibson PW · J Eng Fiber Fabr · 2007 · 2 · 32
40. 10.3390/polym905016310.3390/polym9050163 ↗
41. 10.1007/s10856-014-5352-810.1007/s10856-014-5352-8 ↗
42. 10.1002/app.4694210.1002/app.46942 ↗
43. 10.1007/s13205-018-1356-210.1007/s13205-018-1356-2 ↗
44. 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00046-210.1016/S0142-9612(03)00046-2 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.07.03210.1016/j.actbio.2012.07.032 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.diamond.2013.06.01110.1016/j.diamond.2013.06.011 ↗
47. Mani MP · J Ind Text