(A) A representative ¹H-NMR spectrum of PPS polymers, PMS 1:1 in this case. Signal intensities of the polyols at 3.5 – 5.5 ppm, and of sebacic acid in the polymer were identified at 1.2, 1.5, 2.2 ppm by hydrogens on the carbons labeled ‘a’ – ‘b’, and ‘c’ – ‘e’ respectively. (B) FTIR analysis of PPS polymers.

(A) Degradation of PPS polymers in PBS at 37 °C for 105 d. (B) Degradation of PPS polymer in 0.1 N NaOH.

Representative images of H&E stained sections demonstrating the acute inflammatory response to subcutaneous implanted PPS polymers. After 10 d, (A) PSS 1:1, (B) PSS 1:2, (C) PMS 1:1, (D) PMS 1:2, (E) PMtS 1:4 revealed mild inflammatory responses as compared to (F) PLGA. Images are 10x and bars represent 200 μm. C = fibrous capsule, S = skin and M = muscle.

Initial in vitro analysis of PPS polymers for musculoskeletal tissues. (A) Attachment and subsequent proliferation of an OS cell-line derived from human bone on PMtS 1:4, compared to PLGA (i). OS cell morphology was quantified by cell area (A in μm²) (ii) and circularity (C) (iii). In addition, representative phase-contrast images of OS cells on PLGA (iv) and on PMtS 1:4 (v) are shown. (B) Attachment and proliferation of RMS cells derived from human muscle on PSS 1:2 and compared to PLGA (i), as well A (ii) and C (iii) (* p < 0.05). Representative images of RMS on PLGA (iv) and PSS 1:2 (v) also revealed a difference in morphology. (C) Seeding of primary BACs on PMS 1:2 and PLGA revealed a similar attachment but different cell numbers after 4 and 6 d (i) (* p < 0.05). A (ii), but not C (iv) showed a difference between the polymers (* p < 0.05). Representative images of BACs on PLGA (iv) and PMS 1:2 (v) revealed cell number difference at 6 d. (D) HUVECs attached and proliferated on PXS 1:1 elastomers similar to PLGA (i), and revealed a comparable cell shape (ii) (iii), also demonstrated by phase contrast images of HUVECs on PLGA (iv) and PXS 1:1 (v). All phase contrast images are 10x, bars represent 50 μm.

(A) Typical tensile stress versus strain curves of low Young’s modulus PPS elastomers (PXS 1:1 and PSS 1:1). (B) Typical tensile stress versus strain curves of PPS elastomers with higher Young’s moduli. (C) First and last 10 cyclic compression cycles of a 1000 times to 50 N on PXS 1:1. (D) Co-polymers composed of low– and high modulus PPS polymers, PXS 1:1 and PMtS 1:4 respectively, with 25/75, 50/50 and 75/25 PXS/PMtS w/w ratios.

(A) Attachment and proliferation of HFFs on PPS polymers. The (*) indicates significant difference (p < 0 .05) to the other PPS polymers for that time point. Representative phase contrast micrographic images of HFFs on PSS 1:1 (B), PSS 1:2 (C), PMS 1:1 (D), PMS 1:2 (E), PMtS 1:4 (F), and PLGA (G). Images are 10x magnification. Bars represent 150 μm.

Representative images of H&E stained sections demonstrating the chronic inflammatory response to subcutaneous implanted PPS polymers, 12 weeks after implantation. The PSS 1:1 elastomer had completely degraded at this time. (A) PSS 1:2, (B) PMS 1:1, (C) PMS 1:2, (D) PMtS 1:4 and (E) PLGA. Images A – D are 20x and bars represent 100 μm. Image E is 10x and bar represents 200 μm. C = fibrous capsule and M = muscle.

General synthetic scheme of polyol-based polymers. Xylitol (1), sorbitol (2), mannitol (3) and maltitol (4) were polymerized with sebacic acid (5) in different stoichiometries, yielding PXS (6), PSS (7), PMS (8) and PMtS (9). Simplified representations of the polymers are shown.