Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Degradation of polyetherurethane by subcutaneous implantation into rats. II. Changes of contact angles, infrared spectra, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectra

Degradation of polyetherurethane by subcutaneous implantation into rats. II. Changes of contact... In vivo degradation of polyetherurethanes (PEUs) was studied using two kinds of PEUs, U‐3 and U‐8, coated on a base film of ethylene/vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVAL). U‐3 is a nonsegmented PEU prepared from 4,4′‐diisocyanato‐diphenylmethane (MDI) and poly(tetramethylene oxide) (PTMO 1000). U‐8 is a segmented PEU prepared from MDI, PTMO 1000, and 1,4‐butanediol. Previous studies of PEUs were conducted using gel permeation chromatography and scanning electron microscopy. In this study, the explanted materials were examined with contact angle measurement, ATR‐FTIR, and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopies. All data obtained by these methodologies indicate that the PTMO/MDI oligomers diffused to the material surface in the early stage of implantation. Then, the lowmolecular‐weight fraction of the oligomers leached out from the surface to the exudate. Degradation became dominant after 2–4 weeks. In the case of PU‐8, the PTMO fraction decreased approximately 35–40% from the surface at 24 weeks postimplantation. In the case of PU‐3, the loss of coating material (U‐3) on the base film (EVAL) was observed after 10 weeks. The PTMO fraction of the surface U‐3 remained on EVAL at 6 weeks postimplantation, however, it was 64% of the initial material. The molecular weight of the U‐3 remaining on EVAL also decreased. Degradation of U‐3 occurred more rapidly than that of U‐8. The data obtained with our materials were insufficient in determining evidence of oxidative degradation with IR or NMR spectra. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A Wiley

Degradation of polyetherurethane by subcutaneous implantation into rats. II. Changes of contact angles, infrared spectra, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectra

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/degradation-of-polyetherurethane-by-subcutaneous-implantation-into-Vnq0f3Vylf

References (37)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1549-3296
eISSN
1552-4965
DOI
10.1002/jbm.820291007
pmid
8557722
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In vivo degradation of polyetherurethanes (PEUs) was studied using two kinds of PEUs, U‐3 and U‐8, coated on a base film of ethylene/vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVAL). U‐3 is a nonsegmented PEU prepared from 4,4′‐diisocyanato‐diphenylmethane (MDI) and poly(tetramethylene oxide) (PTMO 1000). U‐8 is a segmented PEU prepared from MDI, PTMO 1000, and 1,4‐butanediol. Previous studies of PEUs were conducted using gel permeation chromatography and scanning electron microscopy. In this study, the explanted materials were examined with contact angle measurement, ATR‐FTIR, and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopies. All data obtained by these methodologies indicate that the PTMO/MDI oligomers diffused to the material surface in the early stage of implantation. Then, the lowmolecular‐weight fraction of the oligomers leached out from the surface to the exudate. Degradation became dominant after 2–4 weeks. In the case of PU‐8, the PTMO fraction decreased approximately 35–40% from the surface at 24 weeks postimplantation. In the case of PU‐3, the loss of coating material (U‐3) on the base film (EVAL) was observed after 10 weeks. The PTMO fraction of the surface U‐3 remained on EVAL at 6 weeks postimplantation, however, it was 64% of the initial material. The molecular weight of the U‐3 remaining on EVAL also decreased. Degradation of U‐3 occurred more rapidly than that of U‐8. The data obtained with our materials were insufficient in determining evidence of oxidative degradation with IR or NMR spectra. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Journal

Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part AWiley

Published: Oct 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.