In vitro comparative study of white and dark polycaprolactone trifumarate in situ cross-linkable scaffolds seeded with rat bone marrow stromal cells

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:Dark poly(caprolactone) trifumarate is a successful candidate for use as a bone tissue engineering scaffold. Recently, a white polymeric scaffold was developed that shows a shorter synthesis time and is more convenient for tissue-staining work. This is an in vitro comparative study of both the white and dark scaffolds.METHODS:Both white and dark poly(caprolactone) trifumarate macromers were characterized via Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy before being chemically cross-linked and molded into disc-shaped scaffolds. Biodegradability was assessed by percentage weight loss on days 7, 14, 28, 42 and 56 (n = 5) after immersion in 10% serum-supplemented medium or distilled water. Static cell seeding was employed in which isolated and characterized rat bone marrow stromal cells were seeded directly onto the scaffold surface. Seeded scaffolds were subjected to a series of biochemical assays and scanning electron microscopy at specified time intervals for up to 28 days of incubation.RESULTS:The degradation of the white scaffold was significantly lower compared with the dark scaffold but was within the acceptable time range for bone-healing processes. The deoxyribonucleic acid and collagen contents increased up to day 28 with no significant difference between the two scaffolds, but the glycosaminoglycan content was slightly higher in the white scaffold throughout 14 days of incubation. Scanning electron microscopy at day 1 revealed cellular growth and attachment.CONCLUSIONS:There was no cell growth advantage between the two forms, but the white scaffold had a slower biodegradability rate, suggesting that the newly synthesized poly(caprolactone) trifumarate is more suitable for use as a bone tissue engineering scaffold.

A biocompatibility study of injectable poly(caprolactone-trifumarate) for use as a bone substitute material

“…In agreement with the previous study (Chai et al 2006), FESEM revealed that the PCLTF porous scaffolds contained pores of different sizes which were interconnected with each other. Furthermore, the weight loss of PCLTF demonstrated a higher degradation rate (30.86 ± 1.15%) than PCL (4.55 ± 0.26%) (Chai et al 2004;Muhammad et al 2012).…”

“…As a result, white PCLTF has a longer degradation time than the dark polymer. Weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of these two versions of PCLTF, the authors decided to explore further the full potential of dark PCLTF for use as an extraction socket filler, because of its more favourable degradation time (Muhammad et al 2012). Before this biomaterial is indicated for clinical use, it is crucial to ensure that dark PLCTF is not toxic to the body (Gomes et al 2001).…”

“…In a previous study, this group developed two types of PCLTF, namely white and dark PCLTF scaffolds (Chai et al 2004;Muhammad et al 2012). Structurally, the two versions of PCLTFs are similar, with the only difference being that the opaque, dark PLCTF is produced as a result of the use of triethylamine (a catalyst used in the esterification reaction), whereas the use of potassium carbonate (K 2 CO 3 ) in white PLCTF yields a translucent, white colour in the final product.…”

Development of biodegradable polycaprolactone film as an internal fixation material to enhance tendon repair: an in vitro study

“…PCL was chosen because of its desirable material properties, such as good biocompatibility and complete degradation, absorption, and excretion in the body [32,35,36,41,42]. In a previous study, rat mesenchymal stem cells were able to adhere and proliferate on PCL scaffolds for bone tissue engineering, demonstrating good biocompatibility [32].…”

“…In a previous study, rat mesenchymal stem cells were able to adhere and proliferate on PCL scaffolds for bone tissue engineering, demonstrating good biocompatibility [32]. In a different study where tritium-labeled PCL ( M w : 3,000 Da) was subcutaneously implanted in rats, 92% of the implanted radioactive tracer was excreted from feces and urine by 135 days after implantation [30].…”