Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T07:43:33.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Destructive Evaluation of Synthetic Tissue Scaffolds With NMR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

L. Garrido
L. Garrido*
Affiliation:
Biomaterials Laboratory, NMR Center, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 149 13th St., Charlestown, MA 02129, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Proton magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is applied to determine non–destructively the open porosity of biodegradable scaffolds of poly(3–hydroxybutyrate-–3–hydroxyvalerate) in vitro and tissue infiltration in vivo. Porous matrices with copolymers having 12% and 24% 3–hydroxyvalerate (HV) are prepared using a solvent casting technique. The results of open porosity P(%) measured by MRI (PMRI) show good agreement with those obtained by gravimetry analysis (PGA). Thus, for scaffolds with 12% HV, PMRI = 91.0 ±1.0 (mean ± s.d.) and PGA = 88.0 ± 0.75; and for those with 24% HV, PMRI = 89.4 ±1.3 and PGA = 88.8 ± 1.0. Also, the extent of tissue infiltration in these scaffolds determined by MRI in vivo was similar to that observed by histology. These results illustrate the potential of MRI methods for investigating the behavior of biodegradable scaffolds non-invasively in applications for tissue engineering.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 550: Symposium GG/HH/II – Biomedical Materials-Drug Delivery, Implants and Tissue Engr , 1998 , 171
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

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

1. Langer, R. and Vacanti, J., Science 260, p. 920 (1993).Google Scholar
2. Langer, R., Annals Biomed. Eng. 23, p. 101 (1995).Google Scholar
3. Patrick, C.W., Mikos, A.G., and McIntire, L.V., Frontiers in Tissue Engineering, Elsevier Sci. Ltd., Oxford, UK, 1988.Google Scholar
4. Wintermantel, E., Mayer, J., Blum, J., Eckert, K.L., Lüischer, P., and Mathey, M., Biomaterials 17, p. 83 (1996).Google Scholar
5. Rotem, A., Toner, M., Sangeeta, B., Foy, D.B., Tompkins, R.G., and Yarmush, M.L., Biotechnol. Bioeng. 43, p. 654 (1994).Google Scholar
6. Berthiaume, F., Toner, M., Tompkins, R.G., and Yarmush, M.L. in Implantation Biology. The host response and biomedical devices, edited by Greco, R.S., CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL,1994, pp. 364–386.Google Scholar
7. Mansfield, P. and Morris, P.G., Advances in magnetic resonance. Suppl 2. NMR imaging in biomedicine, Academic Press, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
8. Mikos, A.G., Thorsen, A.J., Czerwonka, L.A., Bao, Y., Langer, R., Winslow, D.N., and Vacanti, J.P., Polymer 35, p. 1068(1994).Google Scholar
9. Garrido, L. in Methods in Molecular Medicine, vol 18: Tissue engineering Methods and Protocols, edited by Morgan, J.R., and Yarmush, M.L., Human Press Inc, Totowa, NJ. 1999, pp. 35–45.Google Scholar
10. Ackerman, J.L., Garrido, L., Ellingson, W.A., and Weyand, J.D. in Proc. Joint Conf. on Nondestructive testing of high-performance ceramics, edited by Vary, A. and Snyder, J., Am. Ceram. Soc. Boston, MA, 1987, pp 88–113.Google Scholar