Multifunctional Bilayer Nanocomposite Guided Bone Regeneration Membrane  Kai-Run Zhang, Huai-Ling Gao, Xiao-Feng Pan, Pu Zhou, Xin Xing, Rui Xu, Zhao Pan, Shuang Wang, Youming Zhu, Bin Hu, Duohong Zou, Shu-Hong Yu  Matter  DOI: 10.1016/j.matt.2019.05.021 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Matter DOI: (10.1016/j.matt.2019.05.021) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Schematic Illustration of the Fabrication Process and Application of the Bilayer Nanocomposite Membrane (A and B) A single-layer membrane with a nacre-like structure was assembled in one step by the self-evaporation of a mixed dispersion containing CS, GO, and CaSi. (C and D) The bilayer nanocomposite membrane consisting of a porous layer and a nacre-like layer was prepared by spray-coating of the mixed dispersion on the surface of the single nacre-like membrane (C) followed by freeze drying (D). (E) Schematic illustration of the main functions of the membrane for GBR application. Matter DOI: (10.1016/j.matt.2019.05.021) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Microstructure Characterization of the Nanocomposite Membranes (A–C) Side-view (A and B) and top-view (C) SEM images of the single-layer nanocomposite membrane, showing a typical nacre-like layered structure with smooth surface. (D–F) Elemental mapping of N (D), C (E), and Ca (F) in the cross-section of a single-layer nanocomposite membrane. (G–I) Side-view (G and H) and top-view (I) SEM images of the bilayer nanocomposite membrane, showing a typical bilayer structure consisting of a compact nacre-like layer and a porous layer. In (G), 1 indicates the porous layer and 2 indicates the nacre-like layer. Matter DOI: (10.1016/j.matt.2019.05.021) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Mechanical Properties of the Nanocomposite Membranes and the Bio-Gide Membrane (A) Typical tensile stress-strain curves of the dried nanocomposite membranes prepared under different synthetic conditions. (B) Comparison of the tensile strength and toughness of the dried nanocomposite membranes prepared under different synthetic conditions. (C) Typical tensile stress-strain curves of the wet bilayer nanocomposite membrane and the Bio-Gide membrane. (D) Comparison of the tensile strength and toughness of the wet bilayer nanocomposite membrane and the Bio-Gide membrane. (E) Digital images of the wet bilayer nanocomposite membrane and the Bio-Gide membrane before and after tensile testing. (F) Comparison of the bilayer nanocomposite membrane in this work with other reported GBR membranes. Data in (B) and (D) are presented as mean ± SEM. Matter DOI: (10.1016/j.matt.2019.05.021) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Characterization of Biological Functions (A and B) Growth curves of S. aureus (A) and E. coli (B) co-cultured with different membranes. (C) Enzymatic degradation of the bilayer nanocomposite membrane after incubation in PBS with 1.5 μg/mL lysozyme for 3 months at 37°C. (D) Biocompatibility assays of different membranes. (E) Adhesion efficiency of hDPMSCs on the Petri dish (control group without any membrane) and two different surfaces of the bilayer nanocomposite membranes. (F) SEM image of hDPMSCs adhered on the porous surface of a bilayer nanocomposite membrane (marked by pseudo-color). Data in (A) to (E) are presented as mean ± SEM. Matter DOI: (10.1016/j.matt.2019.05.021) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions