Advertisement

Science China Chemistry

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 490–500 | Cite as

Synthetic biodegradable functional polymers for tissue engineering: a brief review

  • BaoLin Guo
  • Peter X. MaEmail author
Reviews Special Issue Recent Research Progress of Biomedical Polymers

Abstract

Scaffolds play a crucial role in tissue engineering. Biodegradable polymers with great processing flexibility are the predominant scaffolding materials. Synthetic biodegradable polymers with well-defined structure and without immunological concerns associated with naturally derived polymers are widely used in tissue engineering. The synthetic biodegradable polymers that are widely used in tissue engineering, including polyesters, polyanhydrides, polyphosphazenes, polyurethane, and poly (glycerol sebacate) are summarized in this article. New developments in conducting polymers, photoresponsive polymers, amino-acid-based polymers, enzymatically degradable polymers, and peptide-activated polymers are also discussed. In addition to chemical functionalization, the scaffold designs that mimic the nano and micro features of the extracellular matrix (ECM) are presented as well, and composite and nanocomposite scaffolds are also reviewed.

Keywords

synthetic biodegradable polymers functional polymers scaffolds tissue engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Couch N, Wtlson R, Hager E, Murray J. Transplantatton of cadaver kidneys experience with 21 cases. Surgery, 1966, 59: 183–188Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Langer R, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering. Science, 1993, 260: 920–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo BL, Glavas L, Albertsson AC. Biodegradable and electrically conducting polymers for biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci, 2013, 38: 1263–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ma PX. Biomimetic materials for tissue engineering. Adv Drug Delivery Rev, 2008, 60: 184–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu XH, Holzwarth JM, Ma PX. Functionalized synthetic biodegradable polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering. Macromol Biosci, 2012, 12: 911–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen GP, Ushida T, Tateishi T. Scaffold design for tissue engineering. Macromol Biosci, 2002, 2: 67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang SF, Leong KF, Du ZH, Chua CK. The design of scaffolds for use in tissue engineering. Part 1. Traditional factors. Tissue Eng, 2001, 7: 679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holzwarth JM, Ma PX. 3D nanofibrous scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Mater Chem, 2011, 21: 10243–10251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nair LS, Laurencin CT. Biodegradable polymers as biomaterials. Prog Polym Sci, 2007, 32: 762–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tian HY, Tang ZH, Zhuang XL, Chen XS, Jing XB. Biodegradable synthetic polymers: preparation, functionalization and biomedical application. Prog Polym Sci, 2012, 37: 237–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Vlierberghe S, Dubruel P, Schacht E. Biopolymer-based hydrogels as scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: a review. Biomacromolecules, 2011, 12: 1387–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tate MLK, Falls TD, McBride SH, Atit R, Knothe UR. Mechanical modulation of osteochondroprogenitor cell fate. Int J Biochem Cell Biol, 2008, 40: 2720–2738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magnusson JP, Saeed AO, Fernandez-Trillo F, Alexander C. Synthetic polymers for biopharmaceutical delivery. Polym Chem, 2011, 2: 48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cameron DJA, Shaver MP. Aliphatic polyester polymer stars: synthesis, properties and applications in biomedicine and nanotechnology. Chem Soc Rev, 2011, 40: 1761–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hakkarainen M, Albertsson AC. Degradation products of aliphatic and aliphatic-aromatic polyesters. Adv Polym Sci, 2008, 211: 85–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jerome C, Lecomte P. Recent advances in the synthesis of aliphatic polyesters by ring-opening polymerization. Adv Drug Delivery Rev, 2008, 60: 1056–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seyednejad H, Ghassemi AH, van Nostrum CF, Vermonden T, Hennink WE. Functional aliphatic polyesters for biomedical and pharmaceutical applications. J Controlled Release, 2011, 152: 168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gupta B, Revagade N, Hilborn J. Poly(lactic acid) fiber: an overview. Prog Polym Sci, 2007, 32: 455–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu XH, Ma PX. The nanofibrous architecture of poly(l-lactic acid)-based functional copolymers. Biomaterials, 2010, 31: 259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Labet M, Thielemans W. Synthesis of polycaprolactone: a review. Chem Soc Rev, 2009, 38: 3484–3504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woodruff MA, Hutmacher DW. The return of a forgotten polymer-Polycaprolactone in the 21st century. Prog Polym Sci, 2010, 351: 1217–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang LL, Liu JJ, Zhang JH, Deng LD, Dong AJ. pH-sensitive nanoparticles prepared from amphiphilic and biodegradable methoxy poly(ethylene glycol)-block-(polycaprolactone-graft-poly (methacrylic acid)) for oral drug delivery. Polym Chem, 2013, 4: 1430–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McNeil SE, Griffiths HR, Perrie Y. Polycaprolactone fibres as a potential delivery system for collagen to support bone regeneration. Curr Drug Deliv, 2011, 8: 448–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torres MP, Vogel BM, Narasimhan B, Mallapragada SK. Synthesis and characterization of novel polyanhydrides with tailored erosion mechanisms. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2006, 76A: 102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jain JP, Chitkara D, Kumar N. Polyanhydrides as localized drug delivery carrier: an update. Expert Opin Drug Deliv, 2008, 5: 889–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jain JP, Modi S, Domb AJ, Kumar N. Role of polyanhydrides as localized drug carriers. J Controlled Release, 2005, 103: 541–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Allcock HR. Generation of structural diversity in polyphosphazenes. Appl Organomet Chem, 2013, 27: 620–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ding JH, Wang L, Yu HJ, Yang QA, Deng LB. Progress in synthesis of polyphosphazenes. Des Monomers Polym, 2008, 11: 215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Teasdale I, Bruggemann O. Polyphosphazenes: multifunctional, biodegradable vehicles for drug and gene delivery. Polymers, 2013, 5: 161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krogman NR, Weikel AL, Kristhart KA, Nukavarapu SP, Deng M, Nair LS, Laurencin CT, Allcock HR. The influence of side group modification in polyphosphazenes on hydrolysis and cell adhesion of blends with PLGA. Biomaterials, 2009, 30: 3035–3041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nichol JL, Morozowich NL, Allcock HR. Biodegradable alanine and phenylalanine alkyl ester polyphosphazenes as potential ligament and tendon tissue scaffolds. Polym Chem, 2013, 4: 600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krol P. Synthesis methods, chemical structures and phase structures of linear polyurethanes. Properties and applications of linear polyurethanes in polyurethane elastomers, copolymers and ionomers. Prog Mater Sci, 2007, 52: 915–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Santerre JP, Woodhouse K, Laroche G, Labow RS. Understanding the biodegradation of polyurethanes: from classical implants to tissue engineering materials. Biomaterials, 2005, 26: 7457–7470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guelcher SA. Biodegradable polyurethanes: synthesis and applications in regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2008, 14: 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang JY, Doll BA, Beckman EJ, Hollinger JO. Three-dimensional biocompatible ascorbic acid-containing scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng, 2003, 9: 1143–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rai R, Tallawi M, Grigore A, Boccaccini AR. Synthesis, properties and biomedical applications of poly(glycerol sebacate) (PGS): a review. Prog Polym Sci, 2012, 37: 1051–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang YD, Ameer GA, Sheppard BJ, Langer R. A tough biodegradable elastomer. Nat Biotechnol, 2002, 20: 602–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pomerantseva I, Krebs N, Hart A, Neville CM, Huang AY, Sundback CA. Degradation behavior of poly(glycerol sebacate). J Biomed Mater Res A, 2009, 91A: 1038–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Patel A, Gaharwar AK, Iviglia G, Zhang HB, Mukundan S, Mihaila SM, Demarchi D, Khademhosseini A. Highly elastomeric poly (glycerol sebacate)-co-poly(ethylene glycol) amphiphilic block copolymers. Biomaterials, 2013, 34: 3970–3983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Masoumi N, Johnson KL, Howell MC, Engelmayr GC. Valvular interstitial cell seeded poly(glycerol sebacate) scaffolds: toward a biomimetic in vitro model for heart valve tissue engineering. Acta Biomater, 2013, 9: 5974–5988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ravichandran R, Venugopal JR, Sundarrajan S, Mukherjee S, Ramakrishna S. Poly(glycerol sebacate)/gelatin core/shell fibrous structure for regeneration of myocardial infarction. Tissue Eng Part A, 2011, 17: 1363–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sun ZJ, Chen C, Sun MZ, Ai CH, Lu XL, Zheng YF, Yang BF, Dong DL. The application of poly(glycerol-sebacate) as biodegradable drug carrier. Biomaterials, 2009, 30: 5209–5214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Slaughter BV, Khurshid SS, Fisher OZ, Khademhosseini A, Peppas NA. Hydrogels in regenerative medicine. Adv Mater, 2009, 21: 3307–3329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nouailhas H, Li F, El Ghzaoui A, Li SM, Coudane J. Influence of racemization on stereocomplex-induced gelation of water-soluble polylactide-poly(ethylene glycol) block copolymers. Polym Int, 2010, 59: 1077–1083Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Peyton SR, Raub CB, Keschrumrus VP, Putnam AJ. The use of poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels to investigate the impact of ECM chemistry and mechanics on smooth muscle cells. Biomaterials, 2006, 27: 4881–4893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mann BK, JL. W. Cell adhesion peptides alter smooth muscle cell adhesion, proliferation, migration, and matrix protein synthesis on modified surfaces and in polymer scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2002, 60: 86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Abebe DG, Fujiwara T. Controlled thermoresponsive hydrogels by stereocomplexed PLA-PEG-PLA prepared via hybrid micelles of pre-mixed copolymers with different PEG lengths. Biomacromolecules, 2012, 13: 1828–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Buwalda SJ, Calucci L, Forte C, Dijkstra PJ, Feijen J. Stereocomplexed 8-armed poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(lactide) star block copolymer hydrogels: gelation mechanism, mechanical properties and degradation behavior. Polymer, 2012, 53: 2809–2817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yang JY, Jacobsen MT, Pan HZ, Kopecek J. Synthesis and characterization of enzymatically degradable PEG-based peptide-containing hydrogels. Macromol Biosci, 2010, 10: 445–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lutolf MP, Lauer-Fields JL, Schmoekel HG, Metters AT, Weber FE, Fields GB, Hubbell JA. Synthetic matrix metalloproteinase-sensitive hydrogels for the conduction of tissue regeneration: engineering cell-invasion characteristics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2003, 100: 5413–5418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stenger-Smith JD. Intrinsically electrically conducting polymers. Synthesis, characterization, and their applications. Prog Polym Sci, 1998, 23: 57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schmidt CE, Shastri VR, Vacanti JP, Langer R. Stimulation of neurite outgrowth using an electrically conducting polymer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1997, 94: 8948–8953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wong JY, Langer R, Ingber DE. Electrical conducting polymers can nonnvasively control the shape and growth of mammalian-cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1994, 91: 3201–3204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Guimard NK, Gomez N, Schmidt CE. Conducting polymers in biomedical engineering. Prog Polym Sci, 2007, 32: 876–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shi GX, Rouabhia M, Wang ZX, Dao LH, Zhang Z. A novel electrically conductive and biodegradable composite made of polypyrrole nanoparticles and polylactide. Biomaterials, 2004, 25: 2477–2488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Richardson RT, Wise AK, Thompson BC, Flynn BO, Atkinson PJ, Fretwell NJ, Fallon JB, Wallace GG, Shepherd RK, Clark GM, O’Leary SJ. Polypyrrole-coated electrodes for the delivery of charge and neurotrophins to cochlear neurons. Biomaterials, 2009, 30: 2614–2624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Xu H, Holzwarth JM, Yan Y, Xu P, Zheng H, Yin Y, Li S, Ma PX. Conductive PPY/PDLLA conduit for peripheral nerve regeneration. Biomaterials, 2014, 35: 225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jeong SI, Jun ID, Choi MJ, Nho YC, Lee YM, Shin H. Development of electroactive and elastic nanofibers that contain polyaniline and poly(l-lactide-co-epsilon-caprolactone) for the control of cell adhesion. Macromol Biosci, 2008, 8: 627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wei ZX, Faul CFJ. Aniline oligomers-Architecture, function and new opportunities for nanostructured materials. Macromol Rapid Commun, 2008, 29: 280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zhang XY, Qi HX, Wang SQ, Feng L, Ji Y, Tao L, Li SX, Wei Y. Cellular responses of aniline oligomers: a preliminary study. Toxicol Res, 2012, 1: 201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Huang LH, Zhuang XL, Hu J, Lang L, Zhang PB, Wang Y, Chen XS, Wei Y, Jing XB. Synthesis of biodegradable and electroactive multiblock polylactide and aniline pentamer copolymer for tissue engineering applications. Biomacromolecules, 2008, 9: 850–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stridsberg KM, Ryner M, Albertsson AC. Controlled ring-opening polymerization: polymers with designed macromolecular architecture. Adv Polym Sci, 2002, 157: 41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Guo BL, Finne-Wistrand A, Albertsson AC. Molecular architecture of electroactive and biodegradable copolymers composed of polylactide and carboxyl-capped aniline trimer. Biomacromolecules, 2010, 11: 855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Guo BL, Finne-Wistrand A, Albertsson AC. Universal two-step approach to degradable and electroactive block copolymers and networks from combined ring-opening polymerization and postfunctionalization via oxidative coupling reactions. Macromolecules, 2011, 44: 5227–5236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Guo BL, Finne-Wistrand A, Albertsson AC. Simple route to sizetunable degradable and electroactive nanoparticles from the self-assembly of conducting coil-rod-coil triblock copolymers. Chem Mater, 2011, 23: 4045–4055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Guo BL, Finne-Wistrand A, Albertsson AC. Enhanced electrical conductivity by macromolecular architecture: hyperbranched electroactive and degradable block copolymers based on poly (epsiloncaprolactone) and aniline pentamer. Macromolecules, 2010, 43: 4472–4480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Guo BL, Finne-Wistrand A, Albertsson AC. Degradable and electroactive hydrogels with tunable electrical conductivity and swelling behavior. Chem Mater, 2011, 23: 1254–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Guo BL, Finne-Wistrand A, Albertsson AC. Versatile functionalization of polyester hydrogels with electroactive aniline oligomers. J Polym Sci, Part A: Polym Chem, 2011, 49: 2097–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Guo BL, Finne-Wistrand A, Albertsson AC. Facile synthesis of degradable and electrically conductive polysaccharide hydrogels. Biomacromolecules, 2011, 12: 2601–2609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Guo BL, Finne-Wistrand A, Albertsson AC. Electroactive hydrophilic polylactide surface by covalent modification with tetraaniline. Macromolecules, 2012, 45: 652–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Guo BL, Sun Y, Finne-Wistrand A, Mustafa K, Albertsson AC. Electroactive tubular porous scaffolds with degradability and non-cytotoxicity for neural tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater, 2012, 8: 144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ercole F, Davis TP, Evans RA. Photo-responsive systems and biomaterials: photochromic polymers, light-triggered self-assembly, surface modification, fluorescence modulation and beyond. Polym Chem, 2010, 1: 37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dai S, Ravi P, Tam KC. Thermo- and photo-responsive polymeric systems. Soft Matter, 2009, 5: 2513–2533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jin CF, Yan RS, Huang JG. Cellulose substance with reversible photo-responsive wettability by surface modification. J Mater Chem, 2011, 21: 17519–17525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Blasco E, del Barrio J, Sanchez-Somolinos C, Pinol M, Oriol L. Light induced molecular release from vesicles based on amphiphilic linear-dendritic block copolymers. Polym Chem, 2013, 4: 2246–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Peng K, Tomatsu I, Kros A. Light controlled protein release from a supramolecular hydrogel. Chem Commun, 2010, 46: 4094–4096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Altunbas A, Pochan DJ. Peptide-based and polypeptide-based hydrogels for drug delivery and tissue engineering. Top Curr Chem, 2012, 310: 135–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Deming TJ. Synthetic polypeptides for biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci, 2007, 32: 858–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Li LQ, Charati MB, Kiick KL. Elastomeric polypeptide-based biomaterials. Polym Chem, 2010, 1: 1160–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kopecěk J, Rejmanová P. Enzymatically degradable bonds in synthetic polymers. In: Bruck SD. Ed. Controlled Drug Delivery, Vol. I. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1983, 81Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Brandl FP, Seitz AK, Tessmar JKV, Blunk T, Gopferich AM. Enzymatically degradable poly(ethylene glycol) based hydrogels for adipose tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2010, 31: 3957–3966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    West JL, Hubbell JA. Polymeric biomaterials with degradation sites for proteases involved in cell migration. Macromolecules, 1999, 32: 241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Jun I, Park KM, Lee DY, Park KD, Shin H. Control of adhesion, focal adhesion assembly, and differentiation of myoblasts by enzymatically crosslinked cell-interactive hydrogels. Macromol Res, 2011, 19: 911–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Barnes CP, Sell SA, Boland ED, Simpson DG, Bowlin GL. Nanofiber technology: designing the next generation of tissue engineering scaffolds. Adv Drug Delivery Rev, 2007, 59: 1413–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wei GB, Ma PX. Partially nanofibrous architecture of 3D tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials, 2009, 30: 6426–6434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wei GB, Ma PX. Nanostructured biomaterials for regeneration. Adv Funct Mater, 2008, 18: 3568–3582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Vasita R, Katti DS. Nanofibers and their applications in tissue engineering. Int J Nanomed, 2006, 1: 15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wei GB, Ma PX. Macroporous and nanofibrous polymer scaffolds and polymer/bone-like apatite composite scaffolds generated by sugar spheres. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2006, 78A: 306–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ma PX, Zhang RY. Synthetic nano-scale fibrous extracellular matrix. J Biomed Mater Res, 1999, 46: 60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Chen VJ, Ma PX. Nano-fibrous poly(l-lactic acid) scaffolds with interconnected spherical macropores. Biomaterials, 2004, 25: 2065–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Liu XH, Ma PX. Phase separation, pore structure, and properties of nanofibrous gelatin scaffolds. Biomaterials, 2009, 30: 4094–4103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Liu XH, Jin XB, Ma PX. Nanofibrous hollow microspheres self-assembled from star-shaped polymers as injectable cell carriers for knee repair. Nat Mater, 2011, 10: 398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kang SW, Yang HS, Seo SW, Han DK, Kim BS. Apatite-coated poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres as an injectable scaffold for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2008, 85A: 747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lee TJ, Kang SW, Bhang SH, Kang JM, Kim BS. Apatite-coated porous poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres as an injectable bone substitute. J Biomater Sci, Polym Ed, 2010, 21: 635–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Holzwarth JM, Ma PX. Biomimetic nanofibrous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2011, 32: 9622–9629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Zhang R, Ma PX. Poly(alpha-hydroxyl acids)/hydroxyapatite porous composites for bone tissue engineering. I. Preparation and morphology. J Biomed Mater Res, 1999, 44: 446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Boccaccini AR, Blaker JJ. Bioactive composite materials for tissue engineering scaffolds. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2005, 2: 303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Dorozhkin SV. Nanosized and nanocrystalline calcium orthophosphates. Acta Biomater, 2010, 6: 715–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Chou YF, Dunn JCY, Wu BM. In vitro response of MC3T3-E1 preosteoblasts within three-dimensional apatite-coated PLGA scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B, 2005, 75B: 81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Zhang RY, Ma PX. Porous poly(l-lactic acid)/apatite composites created by biomimetic process. J Biomed Mater Res, 1999, 45: 285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Liao S, Watari F, Zhu Y, Uo M, Akasaka T, Wang W, Xu G, Gui F. The degradation of the three layered nano-carbonated hydroxyapatite/collagen/PLGA composite membrane in vitro. Dent Mater, 2007, 23: 1120–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Ngiam M, Liao SS, Patil AJ, Cheng ZY, Chan CK, Ramakrishna S. The fabrication of nano-hydroxyapatite on PLGA and PLGA/collagen nanofibrous composite scaffolds and their effects in osteoblastic behavior for bone tissue engineering. Bone, 2009, 45: 4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Wei GB, Ma PX. Structure and properties of nano-hydroxyapatite/polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2004, 25: 4749–4757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Lei B, Shin KH, Noh DY, Jo IH, Koh YH, Choi WY, Kim HE. Nanofibrous gelatin-silica hybrid scaffolds mimicking the native extracellular matrix (ECM) using thermally induced phase separation. J Mater Chem, 2012, 22: 14133–14140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Liu X, Smith LA, Hu J, Ma PX. Biomimetic nanofibrous gelatin/apatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2009, 30: 2252–2258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    He CL, Xiao GY, Jin XB, Sun CH, Ma PX. Electrodeposition on nanofibrous polymer scaffolds: rapid mineralization, tunable calcium phosphate composition and topography. Adv Funct Mater, 2010, 20: 3568–3576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    He C, Jin X, Ma PX. Calcium phosphate deposition rate, structure and osteoconductivity on electrospun poly(l-lactic acid) matrix using electrodeposition or simulated body fluid incubation. Acta Biomater, 2014, 10: 419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Biomedical Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Frontier Institute of Science and TechnologyXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biologic and Materials SciencesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Macromolecular Science and Engineering CenterUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations