Вы здесь

Funct. Mater. 2019; 26 (4): 845-849.


Degradation of three dimensional poly(l-lactic acid) scaffolds modified by gelatin

Ye Zhang1, Hong-ming Liu2

1Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zibo Vocational Institute, Shandong, 255314 Zibo, China
2Zibo Institute for Food and Drug Control, Shandong, 255086 Zibo, China


In vitro degradation of poly(l-lactic acid) (PLLA) scaffolds modified by gelatin was carried out in 0.01 M NaOH solution at 37°C for 5-6 days. The mass loss, pH value, viscosity-average molecular weight, morphology and thermal behavior during degradation were studied. The results showed that the prepared scaffolds were interpenetrating porous structure and the increased degradation time; both the viscous-average molecular weight and melting peak showed a clear upward trend, while the crystallinity and mass loss exhibited a downward trend. The semi-logarithmic linear relationship between the viscosity-average molecular weight and degradation time indicates an autocatalytic process. The mass of the PLLA scaffolds decreased by 10.33 % after 2 days of degradation and decreased by 86.19 % to the end of the experimental period. The decrease in the viscous-average molecular weight and a relatively little mass loss in the beginning of the degradation period indicate the bulk degradation. The gradual mass loss is indicated not only by the bulk degradation mechanism but also a surface erosion mechanism. The results obtained by the in vitro degradation in a NaOH solution at 37°C can find useful applications in solving the biocompatibility of PLLA scaffolds.

Poly(l-lactic acid), scaffolds, degradation, tissue engineering, gelatin.

1. P.K.Chu, X.Liu, Biomaterials Fabrication and Processing Handbook, Boca Raton, CRC Press/Taylor & Francis (2008).

2. Y.Liu, T.Nelson, J.Chakroff et al., J. Biomed.Mater.Res., B: Appl. Biomater., 107, 750 (2019).

3. M.Salehi, S.Farzamfar, S.Bozorgzadeh, F.Bastami, J.Craniofacial Surgery, 30, 784 (2019).

4. N.Mobarra, M.Soleimani, M.Ghayour-Mobarhan et al., J.Cellular Physiol. 234, 11247 (2019).

5. G.Birhanu, S.Tanha, H.Akbari Javar et al., Pharmac.Developm. Techn, 24, 338 (2019).

6. G.Bahcecioglu, N.Hasirci, V.Hasirci, Intern. J.Biolog.Macromol., 124, 444 (2019).

7. X.Li, X.Liu, W.Dong et al., J. Biomed. Mater.Res., B: Appl. Biomater., 90, 503 (2009).

8. F.Boccafoschi, L.Fusaro, C.Mosca et al., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A, 100, 2373 (2012).

9. K.Parvathi, A.G.Krishnan, A.Anitha et al., Int. J.Biolog. Macromol., 110, 514 (2018).

10. L.Lu, S.J.Peter, M.D.Lyman et al., Biomaterials, 21, 1595 (2000).

11. X.Yuan, A.F.T.Mak, K.Yao, Polymer Degradation and Stability, 79, 45 (2003).

12. Y.Zhang, Functional Materials, 24, 660 (2017).

13. Y.Cha, C.G.Pitt, Biomaterials, 11, 108 (1990).

14. X.Yuan, A.F.T.Mak, K.Yao, Polymer Degradation and Stability, 75, 45 (2002).

15. B.Wunderlich, Macromolecular Physics, vol.3, Academic, NewYork (1980).

16. M.Yasuniwa, S.Tsubakihara, K.Ohoshita, S.I.Tokudome, J. Polymer Sci. B: Polymer Phys., 39, 2005 (2001).

17. M.Yasuniwa, S.Tsubakihara, Y.Sugimoto, C.Nakafuku, J. Polymer Sci. B: Polymer Phys., 42, 25 (2004).

Current number: