Influence of Collagen Status on Microstructures of Porous Collagen/TCP Composites

Abstract:

Article Preview

Two starting collagens, sponge and floc collagen, were used to prepare collagen/tricalcium phosphate (TCP) composites. The resulting composites were porous and had 200μm pore size. However, there was a difference in the microstructure of the pore walls for the composites derived from the two collagens, the pore walls in sponge collagen/TCP composite were still porous and had 200 nm micropores size, TCP particles were trapped in collagen matrices. While floc collagen/TCP composite had smooth and dense walls in which TCP particles were embedded. The difference could be attributed to the starting collagen with different status. Sponge collagen has a soft structure, which easily becomes disassembled fibrils during alkali treatment, the disassembled fibrils are integrated again to form a dense morphology for pore walls after freeze-drying. While floc collagen has already a low disassembly degree, the alkali treatment could not be able to separate the fibrils, this remains as micropores in pore walls after freeze-drying. Both porous composites are significant in bone tissue engineering or regeneration. MTT test results showed the two composites had good cytocompatibility, and sponge collagen/TCP composite was somewhat better than floc collagen/TCP composite, which could result from that micropores derived roughness in pore walls of sponge collagen/TCP composite is suitable for cell growth.

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 330-332)

Main Theme:

Edited by:

Xingdong Zhang, Xudong Li, Hongsong Fan, Xuanyong Liu

Pages:

495-498

Citation:

C. Zou et al., "Influence of Collagen Status on Microstructures of Porous Collagen/TCP Composites", Key Engineering Materials, Vols. 330-332, pp. 495-498, 2007

Online since:

February 2007

Export:

Price:

$38.00

[1] K.J.L. Burg, S. Porter, J.F. Kellam: Biomaterials 21(2000), p.2347.

[2] R. Langer, J.P. Vacanti: Science 260(1993), p.920.

[3] F. Zhao, Y. Yin, W.W. Lu: Biomaterials 23(2002), p.3227.

[4] A.C.A. Wan, E. Khor, G.W. Hastings: J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 41(1998), p.541.

[5] Z. Li, H.R. Ramay, K.D. Hauch: Biomaterials 26(2005), p.3919.

[6] C. Rodrigues, P. Serricella, A. Linhares, R.M. Guerdes: Biomaterials 24(2003), p.4987.

[7] L.L. Hench, J.M. Polak: Science 295(2002), p.1014.

[8] C. Zou, W. Weng, X. Deng, K. Cheng: Biomaterials 26(2005), p.5276.

[9] V. Vicente, L. Meseguer, F. Martinez, A. Galian: Ultrastruct Pathol 20(1996), p.179.

[10] Li YB, Weng WJ, Cheng K: J. Mater. Sci. Let. 22(2003), p.1015.

[11] M.J. Beckman, K.J. Shields, R.F. Diegelmann. Collagen. In: G.E. Wnek, G.L. Bowlin, editors. Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering; 2004. p.324.

[12] H. Assender, V. Bliznyuk, K. Porfyrakis: Science 297(2002), p.973.