Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Polymer Science
Volume 2017, Article ID 1286109, 6 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1286109
Research Article

MG-63 Cell Proliferation with Static or Dynamic Compressive Stimulation on an Auxetic PLGA Scaffold

1School of Biomedical Engineering, Inje University, Obang-Dong, Gimhae, Gyeongnam 621-749, Republic of Korea
2Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Jeong Koo Kim; rk.ca.ejni@mikkj

Received 22 September 2016; Revised 5 December 2016; Accepted 22 December 2016; Published 15 January 2017

Academic Editor: Kevin Kang

Copyright © 2017 Myeong Jin Kim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The effect of dynamic compressive stimulation on MG-63 cell proliferation on an auxetic PLGA scaffold was investigated. The estimated Poisson ratio of the prepared auxetic scaffold specimens was approximately (−)0.07, while the Poisson ratio estimated for conventional scaffold specimens was (+)0.12 under 10% strain compression on average. Three stimulus groups were examined: control (no stimulation), static compression, and dynamic compression. In preparation for proliferation testing, cells were seeded at 2.2 × 105 cells/80 μL on each scaffold specimen. The average proliferation rates of the static and dynamic groups were higher than those of the control group: 13.4% and 25.5% higher at culture day 1, 34.7% and 56.2% at culture day 3, and 17.5% and 43.0% at culture day 5, respectively. The static and dynamic group results at culture day 5 were significantly different (). Moreover, proliferation rate of the dynamic stimulation group was 1.22 times higher than that of the static group (). Conclusively, proliferation of osteoblast-like cells was enhanced through compressive stimulation, but the enhancement was maximal with dynamic compressive stimulation of auxetic scaffolds.