Preparation and Cytocompatibility of Hydroxyapatite/glyceride Based olyurethane Porous Scaffolds†

doi:10.7503/cjcu20170749

Abstract

Abstract:

Castor oil was transesterified with glycerol, the glyceride of castor oil(GCO) copolymerized with isophorone diisocyanate(IPDI) to generate polyurethane(PU). The porous scaffolds of hydroxyapatite/glyceride based polyurethae(HA/GCPU) were prepared by in situ polymerization. The GCPU and HA/GCPU porous scaffolds were characterized by Fourier transforw infrared spectroscopy(FTIR) and scanning electron microscopy(SEM). The mechanical property and porosity were tested. The results showed that the porosity of GCPU, HA/GCPU composite with 20% HA and HA/GCPU composite with 40% HA were (61±3)%, (68±2)% and (57±3)%, respectively. The compressive strength of above three porous scaffolds were 605±61, 2125±58 and (4588±260) kPa, respectively. To further evaluate the cytocompatibility of porous scaffolds, the MG63 cells were co-cultured on scaffolds, and light microscopy observation, SEM observation, 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2-H-tetrazolium-bromide(MTT) assay were carried out. The results demonstrated that both pure GCPU and HA/GCPU scaffolds had no cytotoxicity. It is believed that HA/GCPU composite porous scaffolds have the potential to be applied in bone regeneration.

Key words: Castor oil, Glyceride polyurethane, Hydroxyapatite, Porous scaffolds, Cytocompatibility

CLC Number:

O631
O646

TrendMD:

DU Jingjing, HUANG Di, WEI Yan, LIAN Xiaojie, HU Yinchun, WANG Kaiqun, LIU Yang, CHEN Weiyi. Preparation and Cytocompatibility of Hydroxyapatite/glyceride Based olyurethane Porous Scaffolds^†[J]. Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2018, 39(7): 1580.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1 FTIR spectra of glycerol(a), castor oil(b) and GCO(c)

Fig.2 FTIR spectra of IPDI(a), GCPU(b), 20% HA/GCPU(c), 40% HA/GCPU(d) and HA(e)

Fig.3 SEM images of HA microspheres(A) and enlarged photo(B)

Fig.4 SEM images(A1—C1) and corresponding EDS map scanning analysis(A2, A3, B2, B3, C2, C3) of GCPU(A1—A3), 20% HA/GCPU(B1—B3) and 40% HA/GCPU(C1—C3)^(A2) C; (A3) O; (B2) Ca; (B3) P; (C2) Ca; (C3) P. Insets of (A1, B1, C1) are EDS spectra.

Table 1 Porosity and compressive strength of HA/GCPU scaffolds

Sample	w(HA)(%)	Porosity(%)	Compressive strength/kPa
1	0	61±3	605±61
2	20	68±2	2125±58
3	40	57±3	4588±260

Fig.5 Inverted microscopy photographs of MG63 cells cultured on GCPU(A1—A3), 20% HA/GCPU(B1—B3), 40% HA/GCPU(C1—C3) for 1 d(A1—C1), 4 d(A2—C2) and 11 d(A3—C3)

Fig.6 MTT assay for proliferation of MG63 cells cultured with scaffolds^ *p<0.05; **p<0.01.

Fig.7 SEM images of MG63 cells cultured on GCPU(A1, A2), 20% HA/GCPU(B1, B2), 40% HA/GCPU(C1, C2) for 7 d^ (A2)—(C2) higher magnification images of white rectangles in (A1)—(C1).

References 30

[1]	Karageorgiou V., Kaplan D., Biomaterials, 2005, 26(27), 5474—5491
[2]	Marzec M., Kucińska-Lipka J., Kalaszczyńska I., Janik H., Mat. Sci. Eng. C-Mater., 2017, 80, 736—747
[3]	Chen Q. Z., Liang S. L., Thouas G. A., Prog. Polym. Sci., 2013, 38(3/4), 584—671
[4]	Chen C., Bao C. Y., Yuan M., Lin Q. N., Zhu L. Y., Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2016, 37(12), 2291—2298
	(陈超, 包春燕, 袁敏, 林秋宁, 朱麟勇.高等学校化学学报,2016, 37(12), 2291—2298)
[5]	Tetteh G., Khan A. S., Delainesmith R. M., Reilly G. C., Rehman I. U., J. Mech. Behav. Biomed., 2014, 39, 95—110
[6]	Kucińska-Lipka J., Gubańska I., Janik H., Polimery-W, 2013, 58(9), 37—41
[7]	Mcbane J. E., Sharifpoor S., Cai K., Labow R. S., Santerre J. P., Biomaterials, 2011, 32(26), 6034—6044
[8]	Niu Y. Q., Zhu Y. H., Gao R., Yu W. Y., Li L. J., Xu K. T., J. Inorg. Organomet P., 2015, 25(1), 81—90
[9]	Penco M., Marcioni S., Ferruti P., D'Antone S., Deghenghi R., Biomaterials, 1996, 17(16), 1583—1590
[10]	Guan J., Sacks M. S., Beckman E. J., Wagner W. R., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 2002, 61(3), 493—503
[11]	Miao S. D., Wang P., Su Z. G., Zhang S. P., Acta Biomater., 2014, 10(4), 1692—1704
[12]	Xia Y., Quirino R. L., Larock R. C., J. Renew. Mater., 2013, 1(1), 3—27
[13]	Dong Z. H., Li Y. B., Qin Z., Appl. Surf. Sci., 2009, 255(12), 6087—6091
[14]	Benoit F. M., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 1993, 27(10), 1341—1348
[15]	Wang L., Li Y. B., Zuo Y., Zhang L., Zou Q., Cheng L., Jiang H., Biomed. Mater., 2009, 4(2), 1—7
[16]	Wang H. J., Rong M. Z., Zhang M. Q., Hu J., Chen H. W., Czigany T., Biomacromolecules, 2008, 9(2), 615—623
[17]	Li Y. B., Wijn J. D., Klein C. P. A. T., Meer S. V. D., Groot K. D., J. Mater. Sci-Mater. M., 1994, 5(5), 252—255
[18]	Gite V. V., Kulkarni R. D., Hundiwale D. G., Kapadi U. R., Surf. Coat. Int., 2006, 89(2), 117—122
[19]	Nazarov R., Jin H., J., Kaplan D. L., Biomacromolecules, 2004, 5(3), 718—726
[20]	Moatary A., Teimouri A., Bagherzadeh M., Chermahini A. N., Razavizadeh R., Ceram. Int., 2017, 43(2), 1657—1668
[21]	Miao S. D., Sun L. J., Wang P., Liu R. N., Su Z. G., Zhang S. P., Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Tech., 2012, 114(10), 1165—1174
[22]	Stratton S., Shelke N. B., Hoshino K., Rudraiah S., Kumbar S. G., Bioactive. Mater., 2016, 1(2), 93—108
[23]	Wu S., Liu X., Yeung K. W. K., Liu C., Yang X., Mater. Sci. Eng. R., 2014, 80(1), 1—36
[24]	Li Y., Thouas G. A., Chen Q. Z., RSC Advances, 2013, 44(10), 8229—8242
[25]	Wei J., Li Y. B., Eur. Polym. J., 2004, 40(3), 509—515
[26]	Gabriel L. P., Santos M. E. M. D., Jardini A. L., Bastos G. N. T., Dias C. G. B. T., Webster T. J., Filho M. R., Nanomed-Nanotechnol, 2016, 13(1), 201—208
[27]	Liu H. H., Zhang L., Shi P. J., Zou Q., Zuo Y., Li Y. B., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B, 2010, 95(1), 36—46
[28]	Michael F. M., Khalid M., Walvekar R., Ratnam C. T., Ramarad S., Siddiqui H., Hoque M. E., Mat. Sci. Eng. C-Mater., 2016, 67, 792—806
[29]	Gunatillake P. A., Adhikari R., Eur. Cell Mater., 2003, 5(5), 1—16
[30]	Kommareddy K. P., Lange C., Rumpler M., Dunlop J. W., Manjubala I., Cui J., Kratz K., Lendlein A., Fratzl P., Biointerphases, 2010, 5(2), 45—52