Biomineralization and biocompatibility studies of bone conductive scaffolds containing poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(4-styrene sulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS)

  • Mostafa Yazdimamaghani
  • Mehdi Razavi
  • Masoud Mozafari
  • Daryoosh Vashaee
  • Hari Kotturi
  • Lobat TayebiEmail author
Biocompatibility Studies Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biocompatibility Studies


Considering the well-known phenomenon of enhancing bone healing by applying electromagnetic stimulation, manufacturing conductive bone scaffolds is on demand to facilitate the delivery of electromagnetic stimulation to the injured region, which in turn significantly expedites the healing procedure in tissue engineering methods. For this purpose, hybrid conductive scaffolds composed of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), poly(4-styrene sulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS), gelatin (Gel), and bioactive glass (BaG) were produced employing freeze drying technique. Concentration of PEDOT:PSS were optimized to design the most appropriate conductive scaffold in terms of biocompatibility and cell proliferation. More specifically, scaffolds with four different compositions of 0, 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6 % (w/w) PEDOT:PSS in the mixture of 10 % (w/v) Gel and 30 % (w/v) BaG were synthesized. Immersing the scaffolds in simulated body fluid (SBF), we evaluated the bioactivity of samples, and the biomineralization were studied in details using scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction analysis and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. By performing cytocompatibility analyses for 21 days using adult human mesenchymal stem cells, we concluded that the scaffolds with 0.3 % (w/w) PEDOT:PSS and conductivity of 170 μS/m has the optimized composition and further increasing the PEDOT:PSS content has inverse effect on cell proliferation. Based on our finding, addition of this optimized amount of PEDOT:PSS to our composition can increase the cell viability more than 4 times compared to a nonconductive composition.


Simulated Body Fluid Bioactive Glass Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy Analysis Simulated Body Fluid Solution Electrical Anisotropy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Yazdimamaghani M, Vashaee D, Assefa S, Walker K, Madihally S, Köhler G, et al. Hybrid macroporous gelatin/bioactive-glass/nanosilver scaffolds with controlled degradation behavior and antimicrobial activity for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2014;10:911–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yazdimamaghani M, Razavi M, Vashaee D, Tayebi L. Microstructural and mechanical study of PCL coated Mg scaffolds. Surf Eng. 2014;30:920–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Razavi M, Fathi M, Savabi O, Beni BH, Vashaee D, Tayebi L. Surface microstructure and in vitro analysis of nanostructured akermanite (Ca2MgSi2O7) coating on biodegradable magnesium alloy for biomedical applications. Colloids Surf B. 2014;117:432–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Razavi M, Fathi MH, Savabi O, Vashaee D, Tayebi L. Biodegradation, bioactivity and in vivo biocompatibility analysis of plasma electrolytic oxidized (PEO) biodegradable Mg implants. Phys Sci Int J. 2014;4:708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bendrea AD, Cianga L, Cianga I. Review paper: progress in the field of conducting polymers for tissue engineering applications. J Biomater Appl. 2011;26:3–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Giglio E, Sabbatini L, Colucci S, Zambonin G. Synthesis, analytical characterization, and osteoblast adhesion properties on RGD-grafted polypyrrole coatings on titanium substrates. J Biomater Sci-Polym Ed. 2000;11:1073–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mozafari M, Salahinejad E, Shabafrooz V, Yazdimamaghani M, Vashaee D, Tayebi L. Multilayer bioactive glass/zirconium titanate thin films in bone tissue engineering and regenerative dentistry. Int J Nanomed. 2013;8:1665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tahmasbi Rad A, Ali N, Kotturi HSR, Yazdimamaghani M, Smay J, Vashaee D, et al. Conducting scaffolds for liver tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102(11):4169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shahini A, Yazdimamaghani M, Walker K, Eastman M, Hatami-Marbini H, Smith B, et al. 3D conductive nanocomposite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Int J Nanomed. 2014;9:167–81.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kotwal A, Schmidt CE. Electrical stimulation alters protein adsorption and nerve cell interactions with electrically conducting biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2001;22:1055–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bolin MH, Svennersten K, Wang XJ, Chronakis IS, Richter-Dahlfors A, Jager EWH, et al. Nano-fiber scaffold electrodes based on PEDOT for cell stimulation. Sens Actuator B-Chem. 2009;142:451–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guimard NK, Gomez N, Schmidt CE. Conducting polymers in biomedical engineering. Prog Polym Sci. 2007;32:876–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miklavčič D, Pavšelj N, Hart FX. Electric properties of tissues. Wiley encyclopedia of biomedical engineering; 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richardson-Burns SM, Hendricks JL, Foster B, Povlich LK, Kim D-H, Martin DC. Polymerization of the conducting polymer poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)(PEDOT) around living neural cells. Biomaterials. 2007;28:1539–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luo S-C, Mohamed Ali E, Tansil NC, Yu H-h, Gao S, Kantchev EA, et al. Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)(PEDOT) nanobiointerfaces: thin, ultrasmooth, and functionalized PEDOT films with in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility. Langmuir. 2008;24:8071–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karagkiozaki V, Karagiannidis P, Gioti M, Kavatzikidou P, Georgiou D, Georgaraki E, et al. Bioelectronics meets nanomedicine for cardiovascular implants: PEDOT-based nanocoatings for tissue regeneration. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1830:4294–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim DR, Abidian M, Martin D. Synthesis and characterization of conducting polymers grown in hydrogels for neural applications. In: Proceedings of the symposium on architecture and application of biomaterials and biomolecular materials, Boston, MA, 2003. p. 1–4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xiao X, Liu R, Liu F, Zheng X, Zhu D. Effect of poly(sodium 4-styrene-sulfonate) on the crystal growth of hydroxyapatite prepared by hydrothermal method. Mater Chem Phys. 2010;120:603–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crispin X, Marciniak S, Osikowicz W, Zotti G, Van der Gon AWD, Louwet F, et al. Conductivity, morphology, interfacial chemistry, and stability of poly(3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene)-poly(styrene sulfonate): a photoelectron spectroscopy study. J Polym Sci Pt B-Polym Phys. 2003;41:2561–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedel B, Keivanidis PE, Brenner TJK, Abrusci A, McNeill CR, Friend RH, et al. Effects of layer thickness and annealing of PEDOT:PSS layers in organic photodetectors. Macromolecules. 2009;42:6741–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hwang J, Amy F, Kahn A. Spectroscopic study on sputtered PEDOT center dot PSS: role of surface PSS layer. Org Electron. 2006;7:387–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi YS, Hong SR, Lee YM, Song KW, Park MH, Nam YS. Study on gelatin-containing artificial skin: I. Preparation and characteristics of novel gelatin-alginate sponge. Biomaterials 1999;20:409–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghasemi-Mobarakeh L, Prabhakaran MP, Morshed M, Nasr-Esfahani M-H, Ramakrishna S. Electrospun poly(ɛ-caprolactone)/gelatin nanofibrous scaffolds for nerve tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2008;29:4532–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yazdimamaghani M, Vashaee D, Assefa S, Shabrangharehdasht M, Rad AT, Eastman MA, et al. Green synthesis of a new gelatin-based antimicrobial scaffold for tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C. 2014;39:235–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones JR. Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:4457–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yazdimamaghani M, Razavi M, Vashaee D, Pothineni VR, Rajadas J, Tayebi L. Significant degradability enhancement in multilayer coating of polycaprolactone-bioactive glass/gelatin-bioactive glass on magnesium scaffold for tissue engineering applications. Appl Surf Sci. 2015;338:137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kokubo T, Takadama H. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials. 2006;27:2907–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jones JR, Ehrenfried LM, Hench LL. Optimising bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2006;27:964–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fassina L, Saino E, Sbarra MS, Visai L, De Angelis MGC, Magenes G, et al. In vitro electromagnetically stimulated SAOS-2 osteoblasts inside porous hydroxyapatite. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;93:1272–9.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sun S, Titushkin I, Cho M. Regulation of mesenchymal stem cell adhesion and orientation in 3D collagen scaffold by electrical stimulus. Bioelectrochemistry. 2006;69:133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee K, Park M, Kim H, Lim Y, Chun H, Kim H, et al. Ceramic bioactivity: progresses, challenges and perspectives. Biomed Mater. 2006;1:R31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim H-M. Ceramic bioactivity and related biomimetic strategy. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci. 2003;7:289–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hench LL, Xynos ID, Polak JM. Bioactive glasses for in situ tissue regeneration. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2004;15:543–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hronik-Tupaj M, Kaplan DL. A review of the responses of two-and three-dimensional engineered tissues to electric fields. Tissue Eng B: Rev. 2012;18:167–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Darendeliler MA, Darendeliler A, Sinclair PM. Effects of static magnetic and pulsed electromagnetic fields on bone healing. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1997;12:43–53.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shupak NM, Prato FS, Thomas AW. Therapeutic uses of pulsed magnetic-field exposure, a review. Radio Sci Bull 2003;307:9–32.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meng SY, Zhang Z, Rouabhia M. Accelerated osteoblast mineralization on a conductive substrate by multiple electrical stimulation. J Bone Miner Metab. 2011;29:535–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ryaby JT. Clinical effects of electromagnetic and electric fields on fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:S205–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shiyun Meng MR, Ze Zhang. Electrical stimulation in tissue regeneration. INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2011.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tabrah F, Hoffmeier M, Gilbert F, Batkin S, Bassett CAL. Bone-density changes in osteoporosis-prone women exposed to pulsed electromagnetic-fields (PEMFS). J Bone Miner Res. 1990;5:437–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tandon N, Goh B, Marsano A, Chao P-H, Montouri-Sorrentino C, Gimble J, et al. Alignment and elongation of human adipose-derived stem cells in response to direct-current electrical stimulation. Engineering in medicine and biology society, 2009 EMBC 2009 annual international conference of the IEEE: IEEE; 2009. p. 6517–21.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li XF, Kolega J. Effects of direct current electric fields on cell migration and actin filament distribution in bovine vascular endothelial cells. J Vasc Res. 2002;39:391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mostafa Yazdimamaghani
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mehdi Razavi
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Masoud Mozafari
    • 1
    • 5
  • Daryoosh Vashaee
    • 6
  • Hari Kotturi
    • 7
  • Lobat Tayebi
    • 1
    • 8
    • 9
    Email author
  1. 1.Helmerich Advanced Technology Research CenterOklahoma State UniversityTulsaUSA
  2. 2.School of Chemical EngineeringOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.BCAST, Institute of Materials and ManufacturingBrunel University LondonUxbridge, LondonUK
  4. 4.Brunel Institute for BioengineeringBrunel University LondonUxbridge, LondonUK
  5. 5.Bioengineering Research Group, Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials DepartmentMaterials and Energy Research Center (MERC)TehranIran
  6. 6.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  7. 7.Department of BiologyUniversity of Central OklahomaEdmondUSA
  8. 8.Biomaterials and Advanced Drug Delivery LaboratoryStanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA
  9. 9.Department of Developmental SciencesMarquette University School of DentistryMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations