Poly(butylene-carbonate) is a potential alternative to poly(ε-caprolactone) for biomedical application. Although mechanical properties of porous poly(butylene-carbonate) membranes were inferior to poly(ε-caprolactone), its contact angles (47.41° ± 1.17°) were lower than poly(ε-caprolactone) (77.24° ± 0.54°) (p < 0.001). It degraded faster than poly(ε-caprolactone) during a 10-week in vitro experiment (p < 0.01). Moreover, it had excellent bioactivity during simulated body fluid immersion. Cell spreading on poly(butylene-carbonate) was better than that on poly(ε-caprolactone). Cell behavior tests including cytotoxicity, proliferation, and differentiation were performed. The poly(butylene-carbonate) is more compatible with cells and promotes cell differentiation. In vivo, the defects covered by poly(butylene-carbonate) and poly(ε-caprolactone) membranes had a similar degree of regeneration at 4 weeks. It was concluded that poly(butylene-carbonate) could potentially be used to guide bone regeneration, and it is a potential new biodegradable polymer.
GuCHWangJJYuY. Biodegradable multilayer barrier films based on alginate/polyethyleneimine and biaxially oriented poly(lactic acid). Carbohyd Polym2013; 92(2): 1579–1585.
2.
ZhongMLChenXQFanHF. Incorporation of salmon calcitonin-loaded poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) microspheres into calcium phosphate bone cement and the biocompatibility evaluation in vitro. J Bioact Compat Pol2012; 27(2): 133–147.
3.
ZhangHLChenZQ. Fabrication and characterization of electrospun PLGA/MWNTs/hydroxyapatite biocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Bioact Compat Pol2010; 25(3): 241–259.
4.
LeeEJTengSHJangTS. Nanostructured poly(ε-caprolactone)–silica xerogel fibrous membrane for guided bone regeneration. Acta Biomater2010; 6(9): 3557–3565.
5.
JansenJAde RuijterJEJanssenPT. Histological evaluation of a biodegradable polyactive®/hydroxyapatite membrane. Biomaterials1995; 16(11): 819–827.
6.
NieminenTKallelaIKeränenJ. In vivo and in vitro degradation of a novel bioactive guided tissue regeneration membrane. Int J Oral Max Surg2006; 35(8): 727–732.
7.
ZellinGLindeA. Importance of delivery systems for growth-stimulatory factors in combination with osteopromotive membranes. An experimental study using rhBMP-2 in rat mandibular defects. J Biomed Mater Res1997; 35(2): 181–190.
8.
TalHKozlovskyAArtziZ. Cross-linked and non-cross-linked collagen barrier membranes disintegrate following surgical exposure to the oral environment: a histological study in the cat. Clin Oral Implants Res2008; 19(8): 760–766.
MansoMValsesiaACecconeG. Activation of PCL surface by ion beam treatment to enhance protein adsorption. J Bioact Compat Pol2004; 19(4): 287–300.
11.
GimenezSPonsartSCoudaneJ. Synthesis, properties and in vitro degradation of carboxyl-bearing PCL. J Bioact Compat Pol2001; 16(1): 32–46.
12.
GümüşderelioğluMKarakeçiliADemirtaşTT. Osteogenic activities of MC3T3-E1 cells on heparin-immobilized poly(caprolactone) membranes. J Bioact Compat Pol2011; 26(3): 257–269.
13.
NairLSLaurencinCT. Biodegradable polymers as biomaterials. Prog Polym Sci2007; 32: 762–798.
14.
LeeSJOhSHLiuJ. The use of thermal treatments to enhance the mechanical properties of electrospun poly(epsilon-caprolactone) scaffolds. Biomaterials2008; 29(10): 1422–1430.
15.
YangFBothSKYangX. Development of an electrospun nano-apatite/PCL composite membrane for GTR/GBR application. Acta Biomater2009; 5(9): 3295–3304.
16.
ZhuWXHuangXLiCC. High-molecular-weight aliphatic polycarbonates by melt polycondensation of dimethyl carbonate and aliphatic diols: synthesis and characterization. Polym Int2011; 60(7): 1060–1067.
17.
SuWFengJWangHF. Controllable preparation of poly(alkylene carbonate)s and observation on their structure-related odd–even effect. Polymer2010; 51(5): 1010–1015.
18.
WangJZhengLCLiCC. Fully biodegradable blends of poly(butylene succinate) and poly(butylene carbonate): miscibility, thermal properties, crystallization behavior and mechanical properties. Polym Test2012; 31: 39–45.
19.
WoodruffMAHutmacherDW. The return of a forgotten polymer-polycaprolactone in the 21st century. Prog Polym Sci2010; 35: 1217–1256.
20.
LiJYMaiYYYanDY. Preparation and characterization of the crystalline inclusion complexes of α- and γ-cyclodextrins with poly(butylene carbonate). Colloid Polym Sci2003; 281(2): 267–274.
21.
QiuZBMiaoLQYangWT. Crystallization and melting behavior of biodegradable poly(butylene succinate-co-butylene carbonate). J Polym Sci Pol Phys2006; 44: 1556–1561.
HenryJB. Clinical diagnosis and management by laboratory methods. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 1996, 1453 pp.
24.
KokuboTKushitaniHSakkaS. Solutions able to reproduce in vivo surface-structure changes in bioactive glass-ceramic A-W3. J Biomed Mater Res1990; 24(6): 721–734.
25.
RagoRMitchenJWildingG. DNA fluorometric assay in 96-well tissue culture plates using Hoechst 33258 after cell lysis by freezing in distilled water. Anal Biochem1990; 191(1): 31–34.
van NattaFJHillJWCarothersWH. Studies of polymerization and ring formation. XXIII.1 ε-Caprolactone and its polymers. J Am Chem Soc1934; 56: 455–457.
28.
VertM. Degradable and bioresorbable polymers in surgery and in pharmacology: beliefs and facts. J Mater Sci-Mater Med2009; 20(2): 437–446.
29.
LazeaaAKravetsbLIAlbucB. Modification of polyester track membranes by plasma treatments. Surf Coating Tech2005; 200: 529–533.
30.
FujiharaKKotakiMRamakrishnaS. Guided bone regeneration membrane made of polycaprolactone/calcium carbonate composite nano-fibers. Biomaterials2005; 26(19): 4139–4147.
31.
ChoWJKimJHOhSH. Hydrophilized polycaprolactone nanofiber mesh-embedded poly(glycolic-co-lactic acid) membrane for effective guided bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A2009; 91(2): 400–407.
XiaoCMZhuKJ. Synthesis and in vitro degradation of poly(alkylene carbonate anhydride). Macromol Rapid Comm2000; 21: 1113–1115.
34.
SuyamaTTokiwaY. Enzymatic degradation of an aliphatic polycarbonate, poly(tetramethylene carbonate). Enzyme Microb Tech1997; 20: 122–126.
35.
LeeHHYuHSJangJH. Bioactivity improvement of poly(ε-caprolactone) membrane with the addition of nanofibrous bioactive glass. Acta Biomater2008; 4(3): 622–629.
36.
StoppatoMCarlettiESidarovichV. Influence of scaffold pore size on collagen I development: a new in vitro evaluation perspective. J Bioact Compat Pol2013; 28(1): 16–32.
37.
SchortinghuisJRubenJLMeijerHJ. Microradiography to evaluate bone growth into a rat mandibular defect. Arch Oral Biol2003; 48(2): 155–160.
38.
ZellinGGritli-LindeALindeA. Healing of mandibular defects with different biodegradable and non-biodegradable membranes: an experimental study in rats. Biomaterials1995; 16(8): 601–609.
39.
GielkensPFSchortinghuisJde JongJR. Vivosorb, Bio-Gide, and Gore-Tex as barrier membranes in rat mandibular defects: an evaluation by microradiography and micro-CT. Clin Oral Implants Res2008; 19(5): 516–521.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
