A Comparative Review of Natural and Synthetic Biopolymer Composite Scaffolds

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Tissue engineering (TE) and regenerative medicine integrate information and technology from various fields to restore/replace tissues and damaged organs for medical treatments. To achieve this, scaffolds act as delivery vectors or as cellular systems for drugs and cells; thereby, cellular material is able to colonize host cells sufficiently to meet up the requirements of regeneration and repair. This process is multi-stage and requires the development of various components to create the desired neo-tissue or organ. In several current TE strategies, biomaterials are essential components. While several polymers are established for their use as biomaterials, careful consideration of the cellular environment and interactions needed is required in selecting a polymer for a given application. Depending on this, scaffold materials can be of natural or synthetic origin, degradable or nondegradable. In this review, an overview of various natural and synthetic polymers and their possible composite scaffolds with their physicochemical properties including biocompatibility, biodegradability, morphology, mechanical strength, pore size, and porosity are discussed. The scaffolds fabrication techniques and a few commercially available biopolymers are also tabulated.

Related collections

Most cited references 300

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Electrospinning and Electrospun Nanofibers: Methods, Materials, and Applications

Jiajia Xue, Tong Wu, Yunqian Dai … (2019)

Electrospinning is a versatile and viable technique for generating ultrathin fibers. Remarkable progress has been made with regard to the development of electrospinning methods and engineering of electrospun nanofibers to suit or enable various applications. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of electrospinning, including the principle, methods, materials, and applications. We begin with a brief introduction to the early history of electrospinning, followed by discussion of its principle and typical apparatus. We then discuss its renaissance over the past two decades as a powerful technology for the production of nanofibers with diversified compositions, structures, and properties. Afterward, we discuss the applications of electrospun nanofibers, including their use as “smart” mats, filtration membranes, catalytic supports, energy harvesting/conversion/storage components, and photonic and electronic devices, as well as biomedical scaffolds. We highlight the most relevant and recent advances related to the applications of electrospun nanofibers by focusing on the most representative examples. We also offer perspectives on the challenges, opportunities, and new directions for future development. At the end, we discuss approaches to the scale-up production of electrospun nanofibers and briefly discuss various types of commercial products based on electrospun nanofibers that have found widespread use in our everyday life.

0 comments Cited 1184 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Tissue engineering

R. Langer, J. Vacanti (1993)

0 comments Cited 845 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis.

Vassilis Karageorgiou, David Kaplan (2005)

Porosity and pore size of biomaterial scaffolds play a critical role in bone formation in vitro and in vivo. This review explores the state of knowledge regarding the relationship between porosity and pore size of biomaterials used for bone regeneration. The effect of these morphological features on osteogenesis in vitro and in vivo, as well as relationships to mechanical properties of the scaffolds, are addressed. In vitro, lower porosity stimulates osteogenesis by suppressing cell proliferation and forcing cell aggregation. In contrast, in vivo, higher porosity and pore size result in greater bone ingrowth, a conclusion that is supported by the absence of reports that show enhanced osteogenic outcomes for scaffolds with low void volumes. However, this trend results in diminished mechanical properties, thereby setting an upper functional limit for pore size and porosity. Thus, a balance must be reached depending on the repair, rate of remodeling and rate of degradation of the scaffold material. Based on early studies, the minimum requirement for pore size is considered to be approximately 100 microm due to cell size, migration requirements and transport. However, pore sizes >300 microm are recommended, due to enhanced new bone formation and the formation of capillaries. Because of vascularization, pore size has been shown to affect the progression of osteogenesis. Small pores favored hypoxic conditions and induced osteochondral formation before osteogenesis, while large pores, that are well-vascularized, lead to direct osteogenesis (without preceding cartilage formation). Gradients in pore sizes are recommended for future studies focused on the formation of multiple tissues and tissue interfaces. New fabrication techniques, such as solid-free form fabrication, can potentially be used to generate scaffolds with morphological and mechanical properties more selectively designed to meet the specificity of bone-repair needs.

0 comments Cited 801 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Hyeonseok Yoon: Role: Academic Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Polymers (Basel)

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Polymers (Basel)

Journal ID (publisher-id): polymers

Title: Polymers

Publisher: MDPI

ISSN (Electronic): 2073-4360

Publication date (Electronic): 30 March 2021

Publication date Collection: April 2021

Volume: 13

Issue: 7

Electronic Location Identifier: 1105

Affiliations

[1 ]Center for Nanoscience and Technology, Institute of Science and Technology, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad 500085, India; msbhagi96@ 123456gmail.com

[2 ]Center for Advanced Materials, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar; deepalekshmi@ 123456qu.edu.qa

[3 ]Rudolfs Cimdins Riga Biomaterials Innovations and Development Centre of RTU, Faculty of Materials Science and Applied Chemistry, Institute of General Chemical Engineering, Riga Technical University, Pulka St 3, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia; rajandeshwal@ 123456gmail.com

[4 ]Baltic Biomaterials Centre of Excellence, Headquarters at Riga Technical University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia

[5 ]Center for Composite Materials, National University of Science and Technology “MISiS”, 119049 Moscow, Russia

Author notes

[* ]Correspondence: kishorkumars@ 123456qu.edu.qa

Author information

M. Sai Bhargava Reddy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2544-1908

Deepalekshmi Ponnamma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5208-4870

Kishor Kumar Sadasivuni https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2730-6483

Article

Publisher ID: polymers-13-01105

DOI: 10.3390/polym13071105

PMC ID: 8037451

PubMed ID: 33808492

SO-VID: 902befdc-1c6c-4157-8af3-1ab0fa2cff67

License:

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

A Comparative Review of Natural and Synthetic Biopolymer Composite Scaffolds

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Radiology and Natural Language Processing

Most cited references 300

Electrospinning and Electrospun Nanofibers: Methods, Materials, and Applications

Tissue engineering

Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 321

Cited by 231

Most referenced authors 3,760