Fabrication of Polymer/Graphene Biocomposites for Tissue Engineering

Abstract

Graphene-based materials (GBM) are considered one of the 21st century’s most promising materials, as they are incredibly light, strong, thin and have remarkable electrical and thermal properties. As a result, over the past decade, their combination with a diverse range of synthetic polymers has been explored in tissue engineering (TE) and regenerative medicine (RM). In addition, a wide range of methods for fabricating polymer/GBM scaffolds have been reported. This review provides an overview of the most recent advances in polymer/GBM composite development and fabrication, focusing on methods such as electrospinning and additive manufacturing (AM). As a future outlook, this work stresses the need for more in vivo studies to validate polymer/GBM composite scaffolds for TE applications, and gives insight on their fabrication by state-of-the-art processing technologies.

3D printed magneto-active microfiber scaffolds for remote stimulation of 3Din vitroskeletal muscle models

“…Regarding the effect of composition, the incorporation of rGNP@ significantly increases the tangent modulus values of 2% and 10% filler-containing scaffolds with respect to PCL along the x-direction, while there is no such significant change along the y-direction (Figure 4D). Additionally, the yield strain and elastic energy density are significantly reduced for composite scaffolds with respect to PCL scaffolds, indicating a greater component of irreversible deformation for composite scaffolds (Figure 4D), as observed previously in polymer/graphene composites with very high filler content [31,37] . Overall, this can be explained considering that, in composite fibers, deformation causes the movement and reorientation of filler particles and PCL chain sliding around particles, both of which lead to a permanent loss of elastic energy.…”

“…Additionally, the yield strain and elastic energy density are significantly reduced for composite scaffolds with respect to PCL scaffolds, indicating a greater component of irreversible deformation for composite scaffolds (Figure 4D), as observed previously in polymer/graphene composites with very high filler content [31,37] . Overall, this can be explained considering that, in composite fibers, deformation causes the movement and reorientation of filler particles and PCL chain sliding around particles, both of which lead to a permanent loss of elastic energy.…”

“…Previous reports have demonstrated MEW of PCL composites obtained by solution mixing, which is an approach limited to yielding composites with low particle content, including reduced graphene oxide content of up to 1 wt.% [28] and ION up to 0.3 wt.% [30] . Meanwhile, melt-blending has been reported to produce PCL/graphene composites with up to 9 wt.% graphene, processable by conventional fused deposition manufacturing, and able to produce filaments with diameter above 0.3 mm [37,41] , but these composites have not yet been implemented in the context of microscale fibers, i . e .…”

“…Moreover, the zeta potential of rGNP@ is lower than that of non-deposited ION, indicating that the former have higher water stability (Figure S1B). Such features were preferred to ensure biocompatibility, since poor water dispersability has been associated with a lack of biodegradation, bioaccumulation, and toxicity of nanomaterials [36,37] , while large particles (above 200 nm) are more often phagocytosed than internalized [38] .…”

“…Meanwhile, melt-blending has been reported to produce PCL/graphene composites with up to 9 wt.% graphene, processable by conventional fused deposition manufacturing, and able to produce filaments with diameter above 0.3 mm [37,41] , but these composites have not yet been implemented in the context of microscale fibers, i.e. fibers with diameter below 0.3 mm.…”