People | Locations | Statistics |
---|---|---|
Naji, M. |
| |
Motta, Antonella |
| |
Aletan, Dirar |
| |
Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
Ertürk, Emre |
| |
Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
Kononenko, Denys |
| |
Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
Bih, L. |
| |
Casati, R. |
| |
Muller, Hermance |
| |
Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
Azam, Siraj |
| |
Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
Blanpain, Bart |
| |
Ali, M. A. |
| |
Popa, V. |
| |
Rančić, M. |
| |
Ollier, Nadège |
| |
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
Landes, Michael |
| |
Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Silva, Jorge Carvalho
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (21/21 displayed)
- 2024Preparation and Characterization of Zinc Ferrite and Gadolinium Iron Garnet Composite for Biomagnetic Applicationscitations
- 2024Cryoprotective Polysaccharides with Ordered Gel Structures Induce Ice Growth Anticipation and Survival Enhancement during Cell Cryopreservationcitations
- 2024Bioactive Hydroxyapatite Aerogels with Piezoelectric Particlescitations
- 2023Biocomposite Macrospheres Based on Strontium-Bioactive Glass for Application as Bone Fillerscitations
- 2023Thermal, Structural, Morphological and Electrical Characterization of Cerium-Containing 45S5 for Metal Implant Coatingscitations
- 2023Extensive Investigation on the Effect of Niobium Insertion on the Physical and Biological Properties of 45S5 Bioactive Glass for Dental Implantcitations
- 2023Extensive Investigation on the Effect of Niobium Insertion on the Physical and Biological Properties of 45S5 Bioactive Glass for Dental Implantcitations
- 2023Bioactive Glass Modified with Zirconium Incorporation for Dental Implant Applications ; Fabrication, Structural, Electrical, and Biological Analysiscitations
- 2023Hydroxyapatite-Barium Titanate Biocoatings Using Room Temperature Coblastingcitations
- 2023Bioactive Glass Modified with Zirconium Incorporation for Dental Implant Applicationscitations
- 2022Characterization of a Biocomposite of Electrospun PVDF Membranes with Embedded BaTiO3 Micro- and Nanoparticlescitations
- 2019Using water to control electrospun Polycaprolactone fibre morphology for soft tissue engineeringcitations
- 2019Electrospun biodegradable chitosan based-poly(urethane urea) scaffolds for soft tissue engineeringcitations
- 2019Polymer blending or fiber blending: a comparative study using chitosan and poly(ε-caprolactone) electrospun fiberscitations
- 2018Synthesis, electrospinning and in vitro test of a new biodegradable gelatin-based poly(ester urethane urea) for soft tissue engineeringcitations
- 2017Evaluation of nanofibrous scaffolds obtained from blends of chitosan, gelatin and polycaprolactone for skin tissue engineeringcitations
- 2017Hybrid polysaccharide-based systems for biomedical applicationscitations
- 2016Natural Nanofibres for Composite Applicationscitations
- 2016A simple sol-gel route to the construction of hydroxyapatite inverted colloidal crystals for bone tissue engineeringcitations
- 2015Osteogenisis enhancement of hydroxyapatite based materials by electrical polarization
- 2014Electrical polarization of a chitosan-hydroxyapatite composite
Places of action
Organizations | Location | People |
---|
article
Polymer blending or fiber blending: a comparative study using chitosan and poly(ε-caprolactone) electrospun fibers
Abstract
<p>Nonwoven membranes of poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) and chitosan (CS) were produced according to the two methods: by blending the polymers in solution followed by electrospinning – polymer blending method – and by simultaneous deposition of fibers electrospun from separate solutions – fiber blending (FB) method. The two production methods were compared by assessing fiber morphology, mass loss, swelling degree, water contact angle, and mechanical properties of the resulting electrospun membranes. Furthermore, the adhesion, proliferation, and morphology of human dermal fibroblasts on the eight types of scaffold produced were evaluated to assess if the blending method used would influence cell–scaffold interaction. Cell adhesion to the different scaffolds lied in the interval 40–60%, with the CS scaffold presenting the lowest value. Interestingly, cell proliferation was the same when comparing polymer blending and FB scaffolds having 3:1 or 1:3 PCL/CS ratios but very different when the ratio was 1:1 – the FB scaffold sustained a proliferation rate double that of the polymer blending scaffold. This work shows that, when blending polymers to improve the properties of a scaffold for tissue engineering or 3D cell culture, their spatial distribution may considerably affect scaffold's properties and should be considered as another parameter requiring optimization.</p>