Fabrication, bioactivity, in vitro cytotoxicity and cell viability of cryo-treated nanohydroxyapatite–gelatin–polyvinyl alcohol macroporous scaffold

Peer review under responsibility of The Ceramic Society of Japan and the Korean Ceramic Society.

Figures & data

Fig. 1 XRD pattern of synthesized HA nanoparticles (A) NHS, (B) NHR and (C) NHF.

Fig. 2 HRTEM micrographs of synthesized HA nanoparticles (A) NHS, (B) NHR and (C) NHF.

Fig. 3 Variation of porosity and compressive strength for (A) HGPS, (B) HGPR and (C) HGPF with respect to HA content.

Fig. 4 SEM microstructure of scaffold (A) HGPS05, (B) HGPR05 and (C) HGPF05 for 40 wt.% solid loading.

Fig. 5 Mercury intrusion pore size distribution of HA–gelatin–PVA scaffolds (A) HGPS05, (B) HGPR05 and (C) HGPF05 for 40 wt.% solid loading.

Table 1 Physical properties of cryo-treated HA–gelatin–PVA scaffold.

Sample ID	Porosity (%)	Compressive strength (MPa)	Elastic modulus (MPa)	Pore size (μm)
HGPS05	80 ± 2	5.2 ± 0.05	185 ± 3	170 ± 4
HGPR05	75 ± 3	5.8 ± 0.08	202 ± 5	160 ± 5
HGPF05	85 ± 2	4.7 ± 0.03	167 ± 3	180 ± 3

Fig. 6 Stress–strain behavior of the 5 h cryo-treated HA–gelatin–PVA scaffolds.

Fig. 7 Apatite nucleation on the HGPR05 scaffold in SBF solution associated with EDX (A) 1 day, (B) 3 days and (C) 7 days.

Fig. 8 Phase contrast microscopic image revealing the adhesion of cultured L929 cells after one day of incubation: (A) negative control, (B) positive control and (C) HGPR05.

Fig. 9 MTT assay results of various extracts of HGPR05 along with control.