2006
DOI: 10.1089/ten.2006.12.ft-65
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrospinning of Polymeric Nanofibers for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
527
0
10

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 406 publications
(539 citation statements)
references
References 110 publications
2
527
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study the crosslinked electrospun fibrous scaffolds showed a higher tensile strength; however, these scaffolds shrank, and their pore size as well as porosity decreased dramatically during the cross-linking process in glutaraldehyde vapor. Furthermore, a dense layer of fibers hindered cell migration, most likely due to the smaller pore size [15,46,47]. The combination of PCL10% with gelatin10% resulted in significantly higher tensile strength compared to gelatin or collagen and elastin alone and resulted in a uniform and pliant fiber mat.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study the crosslinked electrospun fibrous scaffolds showed a higher tensile strength; however, these scaffolds shrank, and their pore size as well as porosity decreased dramatically during the cross-linking process in glutaraldehyde vapor. Furthermore, a dense layer of fibers hindered cell migration, most likely due to the smaller pore size [15,46,47]. The combination of PCL10% with gelatin10% resulted in significantly higher tensile strength compared to gelatin or collagen and elastin alone and resulted in a uniform and pliant fiber mat.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Discrepancies were found in fiber sizes of the same percentage weight solution due to natural variation in spinning conditions F(2, 197)=99.44, p =0, diameters of LA fibres were significantly different to both LC and LR p=0, with all small fibre diameters presenting with significant differences to each other, F(2, 145)=55.34 , p=0. Clear differences between large and small fibre diameters can be attributed to the polymer solution properties for each scaffold, as viscosity of solution is a big contributor towards fiber size (Sill & von Recum 2008;Pham et al 2006a). These differences in fibre diameter and architecture result in stark differences in scaffold thickness with cryogenic scaffolds at 800 µm thick compared to 90-180 µm for random and aligned scaffolds, table 1.…”
Section: Electrospun Scaffoldsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A bio-inspired cell-scaffold interface must necessarily meet a variety of demanding and coupled requirements, such as biocompatibility and biodegradability of the materials, chemo-mechanical properties [8,9] and morphological characteristics [6,7], all at different length scales. Amongst the manufacturing techniques available at present, electrospinning allows the fabrication of distinctive scaffolds with nanoscale ''filaments" as in the ECM [10][11][12][13]. Electrospun scaffolds consist of 3D, non-woven, highly porous mats, resembling an intricate forest of fibers randomly overlaid on each other.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These fibers are exceedingly long (km range) compared with their diameters (x), which usually follow a unimodal statistical distribution. The mean and spread of such distributions can be controlled and tweaked via process parameters over a wide range, from a few nanometers to hundreds of microns [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. The fiber diameter x is regarded as the prime controllable design parameter to steer scaffold performance in terms of cell response.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%