Cited by 72Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsHydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications

Comparison of glutaraldehyde and carbodiimides to crosslink tissue engineering scaffolds fabricated by decellularized porcine menisci

Gao, Shuang, Yuan, Zhiguo, Guo, Weimin, Chen, Mingxue, Liu, Shuyun, Xi, Tingfei, Guo, Quanyi·2017·Materials Science and Engineering: C

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to fabricate porous scaffolds using decellularized meniscus, and to explore a preferable crosslinking condition to enhance mechanical properties of scaffolds. Moreover, the microstructure, porosity, biodegradation and cytotoxicity were also evaluated. EDAC or GTA in different concentration was used to crosslink scaffolds. FTIR demonstrated functional groups change in crosslinking process. SEM photography showed that crosslinked scaffolds had blurry edges, which resulted scaffolds crosslinked by 1.2mol/l EDAC had smaller porosity than other groups. The structure change enhanced antidegradation property. After immersing in enzyme solution for 96h, scaffolds crosslinked by GTA and EDAC could maintain their mass >70% and 80%. Most importantly, mechanical properties of crosslinked scaffolds were also improved. Uncrosslinked Scaffolds had only 0.49kPa in compression modulus and 12.81kPa in tensile modulus. The compression and tensile modulus of scaffolds crosslinked by 1.0% GTA were 1.42 and 567.44kPa respectively. The same value of scaffolds crosslinked by 1.2mol/l EDAC were 1.49 and 532.50kPa. Scaffolds crosslinked by 1.0% and 2.5% GTA were toxic to cells, while EDAC groups showed no cytotoxicity. Chondrocytes could proliferate and infiltrate within scaffolds after seeding. Overall, 1.2mol/l EDAC was a preferable crosslinking condition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.msec.2016.10.074

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 72

Authors
Gao, S., Yuan, Z., Guo, W., Chen, M., Liu, S., Xi, T., & Guo, Q.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Chinese PLA General Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Xi, Tingfei
  • Guo, Quanyi
Venue
Materials Science and Engineering: C
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
71
Pages
891-900
ISSN
0928-4931 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2548818909
Cited by
72
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Materials Science and Engineering C (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (2012AA020502, 2015AA020303)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81472092)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province (2013011057-3)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2016A030310245, 2016A030310244)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Hydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications
Keywords
tissue engineering scaffolds, glutaraldehyde crosslinking, porous scaffolds, scaffold mechanical properties, porosity, biodegradation, cytotoxicity, chondrocyte proliferation, cartilage tissue engineering
MeSH terms
Meniscus, Animals, Carbodiimides, Cross-Linking Reagents, Glutaral, Swine, Tissue Engineering, Tissue Scaffolds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review