Tailoring Biomaterial Compatibility: In Vivo Tissue Response versus in Vitro Cell Behavior

Abstract

Biocompatibility relies essentially on surface phenomena, represented by cell-cell, cell-material and material (polymer)-protein interactions. An in vivo and in vitro experimental investigation was carried out on the biomaterials of two different classes with a good potential for in situ utilisation. Non-resorbable (Polypyrrole, Polyaniline, Polyimide) and resorbable (PLLA-PDXO-PLLA) materials for tissue engineering were studied for their overall tissue tolerance and cellular interactions. These non-resorbable polymers conceived for biosensor applications and implantable drug-delivery systems are intrinsically conductive. The PLLA-PDXO-PLLA triblock copolymer showed interesting tensile properties for bone and cartilage tissue engineering due to the presence of 1,5-dioxepan-2-one. In vitro and in vivo parallel studies showed an interesting correspondence: a) the cells in contact with the resorbable material that appeared to be capable of migratory-regenerative aspects in vitro exhibited good compatibility in vivo; whereas b) the non-resorbable materials, which are designed to remain in situ in vivo, were seen to have the potential to represent an adverse factor (inflammation, fibrotic reactions) that correlated with some aspects of cell behaviour in vitro.

Application of conductive polymers, scaffolds and electrical stimulation for nerve tissue engineering

“…This potential difference is maintained at a steady level when excitable cells are inactive and is called the resting potential (Paul, 1975). Regarding the electrical properties of cells, electrical signals strongly affect cell behaviour, affecting ion influx across the cell membrane, altering the membrane potential and conditioning the intracellular signal transduction pathways (Mattioli-Belmonte et al, 2003). The transition of information from one place to another in the nervous system takes place along the axon.…”

“…However, recently there has been more evidence of the ability of PANI and PANI variants to support cell growth (Mattioli-Belmonte et al, 2003). Wang et al (1999) investigated the in vivo tissue response to PANI and found no characteristic features resulting from tissue incompatibility after PANI implantation.…”

Instructive Conductive 3D Silk Foam‐Based Bone Tissue Scaffolds Enable Electrical Stimulation of Stem Cells for Enhanced Osteogenic Differentiation

“…We found cell viability to be high when exposed to low concentrations (0.2 mg Á mL À1 ) of CPs and to decrease above 1.5 mg Á mL À1 (a concentration greater than the mass in the individual foams), yet the CPs are markedly less toxic than nanoparticles composed of polypyrrole alone, [25] or indeed poly(3-thiophene acetic acid). [9] Silk-based materials are relatively non-immunogenic in vivo, with inflammatory responses in rats typically lower than collagen or polylactic acid, [26] as is also true of polyaniline [27] and polypyrrole [27] derivatives. Hence, we conclude that, while imperfect, such CPs represent valuable lead structures for the future development of conductive biomaterials.…”

Development of Electroactive and Elastic Nanofibers that contain Polyaniline and Poly(L‐lactide‐co‐ε‐caprolactone) for the Control of Cell Adhesion

“…PAni has been previously explored in several biomedical applications including biosensors and scaffolds in tissue engineering, and demonstrates biocompatibility in both in vitro and in vivo analysis. [17,19,20] Here, our primary objectives were to investigate cell response to nanofibrous substrates prepared from the mixture of PLCL and PAni using camphorsulfonic acid (CPSA) as the dopant. First, the effect of incorporated PAni on the morphology, mechanical strength, surface characteristics, and conductivity of the fabricated nanofibers was examined.…”