Supplementary Materialsnanomaterials-09-01769-s001. shown improved adhesion and proliferation of IAR-2 cells, which shows their high potential for skin reparation and wound dressing. < 0.05, ***< 0.001, ****< 0.0001. In case of the MC3T3-E1 cells, the difference Rabbit polyclonal to ISCU between the samples becomes more noticeable and less clear. Although the average area of MC3T3-E1 cells cultivated on the surface of polymers was notably reduced in comparison with glass control (Figure 8), the actin cytoskeleton organization was quite different. The PCL-ref sample revealed single immature spherical cells and vast areas not occupied by osteoblastic cells. In contrast, the fluorescent microscope images presented in Figure 7a indicate that the MC3T3-E1 cells well spread on the surface of PCLCCOOH and PCLCTiCaPCON substrates. This indicates that the surfaces of COOH plasma polymerized and TiCaPCON-coated PCL are T-5224 adhesive for the MC3T3-E1 cells. The proliferation of MC3T3-E1 cells on the surface of PCL-ref and PCLCCOOH nanofibers was lower in comparison with the glass control (Shape 8). At the same time, a higher cell proliferation activity was seen in case of PCLCTiCaPCON test. After seven days, the amount of cells for the surfaces of PCLCTiCaPCON glass and nanofibers control weren’t statistically significant. Last but not least, remember that the COOH plasma surface area polymerization of PCL scaffolds boosts the adhesion of IAR-2 cells somewhat, which is very important to faster curing of soft cells, whereas the TiCaPCON deposition plays a part in better adhesion, growing, and proliferation from the MC3T3-E1 cells, which are essential characteristics for software as bone tissue fillers. Finally remember that the PCL surface area modification also affects the nanofiber dissolution. PCLCTiCaPCON and PCLCCOOH samples were observed to completely dissolve in SBF within 30 days of incubation. In contrast, only 27% of degradation was reported for PCL nanofibers with the same diameter as PCL-ref samples used in this study [27]. Accelerated nanofiber dissolution may be induced by intensive ion irradiation during the deposition of TiCaPCON film leading to structural changes in the PCL. Additionally, the extremely low WCA value of PCLCTiCaPCON indicates high affinity of water molecules to PCLCTiCaPCON nanofibers, thereby accelerating hydrolysis of hydrophilic PCLCTiCaPCON nanofibers compared to hydrophobic PCL-ref sample. 4. Discussion The morphology and surface chemistry of an implant substrate influence the adhesion and proliferation of osteoblastic cells [33]. The nanofiber structure T-5224 is very suitable for bone tissue engineering since it mimics the architecture of the extracellular matrix. The available literature data concerning the nanofiber types, mineralization methods and utilized cells are summarized in Table 2. COOH-functionalized PCL nanofibers have been used as an effective template to induce HA formation [28]. This is due to the capability of carboxylate ions (COO?) to adsorb calcium ions (Ca2+) and contribute to HA crystallization as a result T-5224 of exposure to phosphate ions (PO43?). Thus, the presence of carboxyl groups on the nanofiber surface induces HA formation and mineralization. Similar results for polylactic-glicolic acid (PLGA) were reported [34]. The presence of calcium layer or HA structures favors the adhesion and proliferation of various stem and/or osteoblastic cells. However, the grafting of COOH groups solely is not an efficient tool. As shown here and in a number of previous publications, the formation of a Ca-based layer requires exposure to the SBF for several days. This approach is not attractive for large-scale application. Table 2 The effect of mineralization method on the cell/nanofiber interaction.

Nanofiber Chemical Composition Mineralization Method Cell Type Cell/Material Interaction