Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T14:24:36.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Polymer/ceramic composite scaffolds for tissue regeneration

from Part II - Porous scaffolds for regenerative medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Ian O. Smith ,
Melanie J. Gupte  and
Peter X. Ma
Edited by
Peter X. Ma
Ian O. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Melanie J. Gupte
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Peter X. Ma
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Peter X. Ma
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

Biomimetics: nature provides the template

Where does a tissue engineer look for inspiration? What is the gold standard to which we hold our designs? Since antiquity, humankind has looked at the world around it for clues as to how we can improve our quality of life, and the gaze of the tissue engineer finds its way there as well. The metamorphosis of this inspiration into technology for the improvement of humankind is the mission of the engineer.

Complex structures are often found performing incredible feats in nature [1]. For example, brachiopod and mollusk shells are subjects of current study, due to their amazingly strong, layered structure [2, 3]. This natural composite structure is being used as inspiration for tissue-engineered structures for cortical bone. This is an example of nature-as-inspiration by utilizing composite material systems for bone tissue engineering scaffold design, an area of great success already, with potential for further advancement. The human body provides a model where collagen fibers are mineralized in a precise manner, resulting in a network of ceramic nanoscale crystals interspersed with an organic mesh. This leads to a hierarchical structure comprising these components and creating bone tissue, which through its complexity derives requisite qualities such as strength, toughness, fatigue life, and nutrient transfer [4]. This example is a common one, but not the only one. In fact, any scaffold design that incorporates one or more aspects of the naturally occurring extracellular matrix (ECM) is biomimetic by definition. In fact, in a broader sense so is any engineering design that borrows from nature. “What has fins like a whale, skin like a lizard and eyes like a moth? The future of engineering.” Tom Mueller’s question posed in National Geographic no doubt ignites a sense of wonderment resulting in brainstorming sessions about countless unsolved engineering problems, but we must focus. Within the scope of this chapter, we will focus on biomedical engineering, and more specifically polymer/ceramic composite scaffold design for use in tissue regeneration.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine , pp. 203 - 214
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Green, D. W. 2008. Tissue bionics: examples in biomimetic tissue engineering. Biomed. Mater., 3, 034010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. S. 2008. “Tuning in” to mollusk shell nacre- and prismatic-associated protein terminal sequences. Implications for biomineralization and the construction of high performance inorganic–organic composites. Chem. Rev., 108(11), 4455–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmahl, W. W., Greisshaber, E., Merkel, C. et al. 2008. Hierarchical fibre composite structure and micromechanical properties of phosphatic and calcitic brachiopod shell biomaterials: an overview. Mineral. Mag., 72(2), 541–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, M. E., Lord, E., Bergeron, E. et al. 2009. Bone cells–biomaterials interactions. Frontiers Biosci., 14, 1023–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hench, L. L. and Polak, J. M. 2002. Third-generation biomedical materials. Science, 295(5557), 1014–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langer, R. and Vacanti, J. P. 1993. Tissue engineering. Science, 260(5110), 920–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, G. and Ma, P. X. 2004. Structure and properties of nano-hydroxyapatite/polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 25, 4749–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giannoudis, P. V., Dinopoulos, H. and Tsiridis, E. 2005. Bone substitutes: an update. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured, 36(Suppl.), S20–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaker, J. J., Nazhat, S. N., Maquet, V. and Boccaccini, A. R. 2011. Long-term in vitro degradation of PDLLA/bioglass bone scaffolds in acellular simulated body fluid. Acta Biomater., 7, 829–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, L., Meng, D., Knowles, J. C., Roy, I. and Boccaccini, A. R. 2010. Multi-functional P(3HB) microsphere/45S5 Bioglass-based composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater., 6, 2773–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajiali, H., Karbasi, S., Hosseinalipour, M. and Rezaie, H. R. 2010. Preparation of a novel biodegradable nanocomposite scaffold based on poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)/bioglass nanoparticles for bone tissue engineering. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 21, 2125–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Hench, L. L. 1998. Bioceramics. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 81(7), 1705–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kundu, B., Soundrapandian, C., Nandi, S. K. et al. 2010. Development of new localized drug delivery system based on ceftriaxone–sulbactam composite drug impregnated porous hydroxyapatite: a systematic approach for in vitro and in vivo animal trial. Pharm. Res., 27, 1659–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milan, J., Planell, J. A. and Lacroix, D. 2009. Computational modelling of the mechanical environment of osteogenesis within a polylactic acid–calcium phosphate glass scaffold. Biomaterials, 30(25), 4219–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misra, S. K., Ansari, T. I., Valappil, S. P. et al. 2010. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) multifunctional composite scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials, 31, 2806–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, C., Su, P., Wang, Y. et al. 2010. A novel biomimetic composite scaffold hybridized with mesenchymal stem cells in repair of rat bone defects models. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 95(2), 495–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, C., Su, P., Chen, X. et al. 2011. Biocompatibility and osteogenesis of biomimetic Bioglass–collagen–phosphatidylserine composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 32, 1051–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hing, K. A., Wilson, L. F. and Buckland, T. 2007. Comparative performance of three ceramic bone graft substitutes. Spine J., 7, 475–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, T., Pamula, E., Hauk, D. et al. 2009. Porous polymer/hydroxyapatite scaffolds: characterization and biocompatibility investigations. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 20, 1909–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Henriksen, S. S., Ding, M., Vinther Juhl, M., Theilgaard, N. and Overgaard, S. 2011. Mechanical strength of ceramic scaffolds reinforced with biopolymers is comparable to that of human bone. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 22, 1111–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Khan, Y., El-Amin, S. F. and Laurencin, C. T. 2006. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a novel polymer–ceramic composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. In 28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference, New York.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Ahn, K. M., Park, M. S. et al. 2007. A poly(lactide-co-glycolide)/hydroxyapatite composite scaffold with enhanced osteoconductivity. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 80, 206–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S.-S., Park, M. S., Gwak, S.-J., Choi, C. Y. and Kim, B.-S. 2006. Accelerated bonelike apatite growth on porous polymer/ceramic composite scaffolds in vitro. Tissue Eng., 12(10), 2997–3006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S., Park, M. S., Jeon, O., Choi, C. Y. and Kim, B.-S. 2006. Poly(lactide-co-glycolide)/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 27, 1399–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leong, N. L., Jiang, J. and Lu, H. H. 2006. Polymer–ceramic composite scaffold induces osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. In 28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference, New York.Google Scholar
Qing, L. V., Nair, L. and Laurencin, C. T. 2008. Fabrication, characterization, and in vitro evaluation of poly(lactic acid glycolic acid)/nano-hydroxyapatite composite microsphere-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering in rotating bioreactors. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 91, 679–91.Google Scholar
Qiu, X., Hong, Z., Hu, J. et al. 2005. Hydroxyapatite surface modified by l-lactic acid and its subsequent grafting polymerization of l-lactide. Biomacromolecules, 6, 1193–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scaglione, S., Lazzarini, E., Ilengo, C. and Quarto, R. 2010. A composite material model for improved bone formation. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med., 4, 505–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, R. and Ma, P. 1999. Poly(α-hydroxyl acids) hydroxyapatite porous composites for bone-tissue engineering. I. Preparation and morphology. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 44(4), 446–55.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, R. Y. and Ma, P. X. 1999. Porous poly(l-lactic acid)/apatite composites created by biomimetic process. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 45(4), 285–93.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, G. and Ma, P. X. 2006. Macroporous and nanofibrous polymer scaffolds and polymer/bone-like apatite composite scaffolds generated by sugar spheres. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 78, 306–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X. H. and Ma, P. X. 2004. Polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Ann. Biomed. Eng., 32(3), 477–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, P. X. 2008. Biomimetic materials for tissue engineering. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 60, 184–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, D., Jin, Y., Zhou, Y. et al. 2008. In situ mineralization of hydroxyapatite on electrospun chitosan-based nanofibrous scaffolds. Macromol. Biosci., 8, 239–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, F., Tang, Q. L., Zhu, Y. J. et al. 2010. Hydroxyapatite nanorods/poly(vinyl pyrolidone) composite nanofibers, arrays and three-dimensional fabrics: electrospun preparation and transformation to hydroxyapatite nanostructures. Acta Biomater., 6, 3013–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, J., Kim, H.-E. and Kim, H.-W. 2008. Electrospun fibrous web of collagen–apatite precipitated nanocomposite for bone regeneration. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 19(8), 2925–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Li, X. R., Xie, J. W., Yuan, X. Y. and Xia, Y. N. 2008. Coating electrospun poly(ε-caprolactone) fibers with gelatin and calcium phosphate and their use as biomimetic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Langmuir, 24(24), 14145–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spadaccio, C., Rainer, A., Trombetta, M. et al. 2009. Poly-l-lactic acid/hydroxyapatite electrospun nanocomposites induce chondrogenic differentiation of human MSC. Ann. Biomed. Eng., 37(7), 1376–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, J., Chu, B. and Hsiao, B. S. 2006. Mineralization of hydroxyapatite in electrospun nanofibrous poly(l-lactic acid) scaffolds. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 79, 307–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, C., Xiao, G., Jin, X., Sun, C. and Ma, P. X. 2010. Electrodeposition on nanofibrous polymer scaffolds: rapid mineralization, tunable calcium phosphate composition and topography. Adv. Functional Mater., 20(20), 3568–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, C., Zhang, F., Cao, L. et al. 2012. Rapid mineralization of porous gelatin scaffolds by electrodeposition for bone tissue engineering. J. Mater. Chem., 22(5), 2111–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijayaraghavan, T. V. and Bensalem, A. 1995. Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating by electrodeposition on α-Ti and α–β-Ti alloys. J. Dental Res., 74, 474.Google Scholar
Cai, Z., Zhang, T., Di, L. et al. 2011. Morphological and histological analysis on the in vivo degradation of poly(propylene fumarate)/(calcium sulfate/β-tricalcium phosphate). Biomed. Microdevices, 13(4), 623–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, J., Tang, A., Ateshian, G. A. et al. 2010. Bioactive stratified polymer ceramic–hydrogel scaffold for integrative osteochondral repair. Ann. Biomed. Eng., 38(6), 2183–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khang, D., Kim, S. Y., Liu-Snyder, P. et al. 2007. Enhanced fibronectin adsorption on carbon nanotube/poly(carbonate) urethane: independent role of surface nano-roughness and associated surface energy. Biomaterials, 28, 4756–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X., Smith, L. A., Hu, J. and Ma, P. X. 2009. Biomimetic nanofibrous gelatin/apatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 30, 2252–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verma, D., Katti, K. S. and Katti, D. R. 2008. Effect of biopolymers on structure of hydroxyapatite and interfacial interactions in biomimetically synthesized hydroxyapatite/biopolymer nanocomposites. Ann. Biomed. Eng., 36(6), 1024–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, H., Li, Y., Zuo, Y. et al. 2007. Biocompatibility and osteogenesis of biomimetic nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 28(22), 3338–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Y., Jiang, W., Wen, X. et al. 2010. A novel calcium phosphate ceramic–magnetic nanoparticle composite as a potential bone substitute. Biomed. Mater., 5, 015001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, X., Yao, C., Sun, F. et al. 2008. Conjugate electrospinning of continuous nanofiber yarn of poly(l-lactide)/nanotricalcium phosphate nanocomposite. J. Appl. Polymer Sci., 107, 3756–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mei, F., Zhong, J., Yang, X. et al. 2007. Improved biological characteristics of poly(l-lactic acid) electrospun membrane by incorporation of multiwalled carbon nanotubes/hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules, 8, 3729–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y., Bilgen, B., Pareta, R. A. et al. 2010. Self-assembled rosette nanotube/hydrogel composites for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. Part C, 16(6), 1233–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, H. W., Lee, H. H. and Chun, G. S. 2007. Bioactivity and osteoblast responses of novel biomedical nanocomposites of bioactive glass nanofiber filled poly(lactic acid). J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 85, 651–63.Google Scholar
Venugopal, J. R., Low, S., Choon, A. T., Kumar, A. B. and Ramakrishna, S. 2008. Nanobioengineered electrospun composite nanofibers and osteoblasts for bone regeneration. Artificial Organs, 35(5), 388–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Z., Tian, J., Yu, B., Xu, Y. and Feng, Q. 2009. A bone-like nano-hydroxyapatite/collagen loaded injectable scaffold. Biomed. Mater., 4, 055005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, S. W., Yang, H. S., Seo, S. W., Han, D. K. and Kim, B. S. 2008. Apatite-coated poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres as an injectable scaffold for bone tissue engineering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 85, 747–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feng, K., Sun, H., Bradley, M. A. et al. 2010. Novel antibacterial nanofibrous PLLA scaffolds. J. Controlled Release, 146(3), 363–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kundu, B., Nandi, S. K., Dasgupta, S. et al. 2011. Macro-to-micro porous special bioactive glass and ceftriaxone–sulbactam composite drug delivery system for treatment of chronic osteomyelitis: an investigation through in vitro and in vivo animal trial. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 22, 705–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Niu, X., Feng, Q., Wang, M., Guo, X. and Zheng, Q. 2009. Porous nano-HA/collagen/PLLA scaffold containing chitosan microspheres for controlled delivery of synthetic peptide derived from BMP-2. J. Controlled Release, 134, 111–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, X., Oyane, A., Tsurushima, H. et al. 2011. BMP-2 and ALP gene expression induced by a BMP-2 gene–fibronectin–apatite composite layer. Biomed. Mater., 6, 045004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, G., Jin, Q., Giannobile, W. V. and Ma, P. X. 2007. The enhancement of osteogenesis by nano-fibrous scaffolds incorporating rhBMP-7 nanospheres. Biomaterials, 28(12), 2087–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, M., Wang, H., Liu, J. et al. 2011. A mesoporous silica nanoparticulate/β-TCP/BG composite drug delivery system for osteoarticular tuberculosis therapy. Biomaterials, 32 1986–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pittenger, M., Mackay, A., Beck, S. et al. 1999. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science, 284(5411), 143–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyckmans, J., Roberts, S. J., Schrooten, J. and Luyten, F. P. 2010. A clinically relevant model of osteoinduction: a process requiring calcium phosphate and BMP/Wnt signalling. J. Cellular Molec. Medicine, 14(6b), 1845–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, J., Liu, X. and Ma, P. X. 2008. Induction of osteoblast differentiation phenotype on poly(l-lactic acid) nanofibrous matrix. Biomaterials, 29(28), 3815–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garreta, E., Gasset, D., Semino, C. and Borrós, S. 2007. Fabrication of a three-dimensional nanostructured biomaterial for tissue engineering of bone. Biomolec. Eng., 24(1), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Angelo, F., Armentano, I., Cacciotti, I. et al. 2012. Tuning multi/pluri-potent stem cell fate by electrospun poly(l-lactic acid)–calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite nanocomposite mats. Biomacromolecules, 13(5), 1350–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lao, L., Zhu, Y., Zhang, Y. et al. 2012. Mineralization of collagen-coated electrospun poly(lactide-co-glycolide) nanofibrous mesh to enhance growth and differentiation of osteoblasts and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Adv. Eng. Mater., 14(4), B123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polini, A., Pisignano, D., Parodi, M., Quarto, R. and Scaglione, S. 2011. Osteoinduction of human mesenchymal stem cells by bioactive composite scaffolds without supplemental osteogenic growth factors. PLoS One, 6(10), e26211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngiam, M., Liao, S., Patil, A. J. et al. 2009. The fabrication of nano-hydroxyapatite on PLGA and PLGA/collagen nanofibrous composite scaffolds and their effects in osteoblastic behavior for bone tissue engineering. Bone, 45(1), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamai, N., Myoui, A., Hirao, M. et al. 2005. A new biotechnology for articular cartilage repair: subchondral implantation of a composite of interconnected porous hydroxyapatite, synthetic polymer (PLA-PEG), and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 13(5), 405–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Y., Adachi, N., Nakamae, A., Yanada, S. and Ochi, M. 2008. Transplantation of tissue-engineered osteochondral plug using cultured chondrocytes and interconnected porous calcium hydroxyapatite ceramic cylindrical plugs to treat osteochondral defects in a rabbit model. Artificial Organs, 32(1), 36–44.Google Scholar
Tanaka, T., Komaki, H., Chazono, M. and Fujii, K. 2005. Use of a biphasic graft constructed with chondrocytes overlying a β-tricalcium phosphate block in the treatment of rabbit osteochondral defects. Tissue Eng., 11(1–2), 331–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, L., Liu, X., Hu, J., Wang, P. and Ma, P. X. 2009. Enhancing osteogenic differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells by nanofibers. Tissue Eng.: Part A, 15(7), 1855–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, K. M., Chen, V. J. and Ma, P. X. 2003. Nano-fibrous scaffolding architecture selectively enhances protein adsorption contributing to cell attachment. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 67(2), 531–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nur-E-Kamal, A., Ahmed, I., Kamal, J., Schindler, M. and Meiners, S. 2006. Three-dimensional nanofibrillar surfaces promote self-renewal in mouse embryonic stem Cells, Stem Cells, 24(2), 426–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, K., Jun, J., Chen, V. et al. 2007. Nano-fibrous scaffolding promotes osteoblast differentiation and biomineralization. Biomaterials, 28(2), 335–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, K., Seo, J., Zhang, R. and Ma, P. 2007. Suppression of apoptosis by enhanced protein adsorption on polymer/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds. Biomaterials, 28(16), 2622–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, J. H., Kim, J. H., Park, S. et al. 2008. Signaling responses of osteoblast cells to hydroxyapatite: the activation of ERK and SOX9. J. Bone Miner. Metab, 26(2), 138–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×