Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:38:27.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drug Delivered Poly(ethylene glycol) Diacrylate (PEGDA) Hydrogels and Their Mechanical Characterization Tests for Tissue Engineering Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2018

Kerolos Hanna ,
Ozgul Yasar-Inceoglu  and
Ozlem Yasar
Kerolos Hanna
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, New York City College of Technology, Brooklyn, NY11201, USA.
Ozgul Yasar-Inceoglu
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, California State University, Chico, CA95929-0789, USA.
Ozlem Yasar*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, New York City College of Technology, Brooklyn, NY11201, USA.
*
*(Email: oyasar@citytech.cuny.edu)
Get access

Abstract

Tissue Engineering has been studied to develop tissues as an alternative approach to the organ regeneration. Successful artificial tissue growth in regenerative medicine depends on the precise scaffold fabrication as well as the cell-cell and cell-scaffold interaction. Scaffolds are extracellular matrices that guide cells to grow in 3D to regenerate the tissues. Cell-seeded scaffolds must be implanted to the damaged tissues to do the tissue regeneration. Scaffolds’ mechanical properties and porosities are the two main scaffold fabrication parameters as the scaffolds must be able to hold the pressure due to the surrounding tissues after the implantation process. In this research, scaffolds were fabricated by photolithography and Poly(ethylene glycol) Diacrylate (PEGDA) which is a biocompatible and biodegradable material was used as a fabrication material. In order to compare the compressive properties of PEGDA only with the compressive properties of drug delivered PEGDA, firstly, PEGDA only solutions were prepared. Then, PEGDA was mixed with Meloxicam 15 mg, Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, Cyclobenzaprine 10 mg and Spironolactone-hctz 25-25 mg respectively and they were placed under the UV light for about 15 minutes to solidify the cylindrical shaped hydrogels. 5 samples from each group were fabricated under the same conditions. Laboratory temperature, photoinitiator concentration and UV light intensity was kept constant during the fabrication process. After the fabrication was completed, Instron 3369 universal mechanical testing machine with the 5 mm/min compression rate was used to do the compression tests to compare the drug effects on PEGDA hydrogels. Our results indicate that average ultimate strength of PEGDA only samples was 3.820 MPa. Also, due to the fact that Meloxicam 15 mg and PEGDA mixture did not solidify under the UV light at all, compression test could not be performed for PEGDA- Meloxicam 15 mg mixture. However, Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, Cyclobenzaprine 10 mg and Spironolactone-hctz 25-25 mg dissolved within the PEGDA completely and our compression results show that average ultimate strengths were 3.372 MPa, 1.602 MPa, 1.999 MPa respectively. This preliminary research showcases that compressive properties of the PEGDA-based photopolymerized scaffolds can be altered with the control of the drug type and drug concentration.

Keywords

polymerizationtissuebiomedical
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 3 , Issue 30: Biomaterials and Soft Materials , 2018 , pp. 1697 - 1702
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Prashad, R. and Yasar, O., MRS Advances 2 (19–20), 1071-1075 (2017).Google Scholar
Tam, J. and Yasar, O., MRS Advances, 1-6 (2017).Google Scholar
Song, D., Olano, M., Wilson, D., Pastuszko, A., Tammela, O., Nho, K. and Shorr, R., Transfusion 35 (7), 552-558 (1995).Google Scholar
Guarino, V., Alvarez-Perez, M.A., Borriello, A., Napolitano, T. and Ambrosio, L., Advanced healthcare materials 2 (1), 218-227 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biondi, M., Ungaro, F., Quaglia, F. and Netti, P.A., Advanced drug delivery reviews 60 (2), 229-242 (2008).Google Scholar
Ramanan, R.M.K., Chellamuthu, P., Tang, L. and Nguyen, K.T., Biotechnology progress 22 (1), 118-125 (2006).Google Scholar
Oh, J.K., Drumright, R., Siegwart, D.J. and Matyjaszewski, K., Progress in Polymer Science 33 (4), 448-477 (2008).Google Scholar
Hamidi, M., Azadi, A. and Rafiei, P., Advanced drug delivery reviews 60 (15), 1638-1649 (2008).Google Scholar
Sill, T.J. and von Recum, H.A., Biomaterials 29 (13), 1989-2006 (2008).Google Scholar
Cavallo, A., Madakhiele, M., Masullo, U., Lionetto, M. G. and Sannino, A., Journal of Applied Polymer Science,134(2) (2017)Google Scholar
Parloto, M., Reichert, S., Barney, R. and Murphy, W. L., Macromolecular bioscience, 14(5): p. 687–698 (2014)Google Scholar
Yasar, O., Inceoglu, S. and Prashad, R., presented at the ASME 2017 12th International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference collocated with the JSME/ASME 2017 6th International Conference on Materials and Processing, Los Angeles, CA, (2017).Google Scholar
Yasar, O. and Inceoglu, S., presented at the ASME 2016 11th International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, Blacksburg, VA, (2016).Google Scholar