What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to explore how different solvent systems affect the properties of PLGA nanofibers and their influence on dental stem cells.

June 29, 2026Open Access

Solvent-dependent PLGA nanofibers differentially regulate adhesion, viability, and osteogenesis of dental stem cells

FAFiras AlsoleihatUniversity of Jordan MMMarwa MohammadPetra University MAMohammad AbounPetra University

Key Points

This research aims to explore how different solvent systems affect the properties of PLGA nanofibers and their influence on dental stem cells.
PLGA nanofibrous scaffolds were created using two solvent systems: DMSO–chloroform and chloroform.
DMSC adhesion, viability, and osteogenic differentiation were assessed through various assays and morphological analysis.
Characterization included SEM, contact angle measurements, FTIR, and TGA.
Scaffold A demonstrated higher DPSC and PDLSC adhesion compared to GMSCs, significantly enhancing cell attachment metrics.
DPSC viability was significantly higher on Scaffold B at both 24 and 72 hours.
Osteogenic differentiation showed Scaffold A enhancing ALP and OCN production in all DMSCs, while Scaffold B was effective in DPSCs and PDLSCs only.

Abstract

Alveolar bone loss associated with periodontitis and related conditions poses major clinical challenges, underscoring the need for effective regenerative strategies. Dental-derived mesenchymal stem cells (DMSCs), including dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs), periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs), and gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs), are promising candidates for regenerative applications. However, successful clinical translation requires biomaterial scaffolds that mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) and support cell processes. Electrospun poly(D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanofibrous scaffolds were fabricated using two solvent systems: Scaffold A (DMSO–chloroform) and Scaffold B (chloroform). Scaffold morphology and physicochemical properties were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), contact angle measurements, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). DMSC adhesion, viability, and osteogenic differentiation were evaluated using adhesion assays, Alamar Blue, Calcein AM live-cell staining, and analysis of osteogenic markers including alkaline phosphatase (ALP), osteocalcin (OCN), and osteopontin (OPN). Scaffold A exhibited uniform, bead-free fibers with higher hydrophobicity, whereas Scaffold B showed bead-like morphology and increased hydrophilicity. Both scaffolds supported DMSC attachment and spreading; however, adhesion of DPSCs and PDLSCs was significantly higher on Scaffold A, while GMSCs showed no scaffold-dependent differences. Viability assays demonstrated overall cytocompatibility, with significantly higher DPSC viability on Scaffold B at 24 and 72 h. Osteogenic differentiation was cell–type–dependent: Scaffold A significantly enhanced ALP and OCN production across all DMSCs, whereas Scaffold B increased ALP in DPSCs and PDLSCs but not in GMSCs. FTIR confirmed preservation of PLGA chemical structure, while TGA indicated reduced thermal stability following electrospinning. Solvent-driven modulation of PLGA nanofiber morphology and surface wettability enables fine-tuning of scaffold performance, offering a versatile platform for periodontal and craniofacial tissue regeneration.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper