Literature DB >> 21223257

Cell replication in craniofacial periosteum: appositional vs. resorptive sites.

Pannee Ochareon1, Susan W Herring.   

Abstract

The size and the shape of craniofacial bones results from periosteal activity, which can be either appositional or resorptive. The periosteum is often used as a source of graft material for osteogenesis, but differences in cellular makeup and proliferative capacity may render resorptive regions unsuitable for transplant. This study was undertaken to characterize the cells in appositional and resorptive periosteum, and to assess variation in proliferative activity. Young pigs (n=9) were injected with bromodeoxyuridine to label replicating cells and killed 3h later. The mandibular ramus, hard palate and zygomatic arch were examined for patterns of periosteal activity, and replicating cells were quantified in 16 appositional and eight resorptive regions. Sections were also reacted for markers of osteogenic (Runx2) and osteoclastic [CTR (calcitonin receptor), RANK, TRAP, CD14] lineage, and for an endothelial label (lectin). Replicating cells were often associated with the vasculature; most were unreactive for markers of differentiation. Although the fibrous layers of periosteum had fewer replicating cells per unit area than inner layers (P<0.005), this was in part due to lower cellularity. Appositional periostea differed from resorptive periostea in having thicker fibrous layers (197 vs. 89μm, P=0.02) and higher replication density in the inner layers (606 vs. 329 labeled cells mm(-2) , P=0.02). Osteoprogenitors were numerous in the inner layers of appositional but very scarce in resorptive periostea. Multinucleated osteoclasts were never seen in appositional regions, but mononuclear cells positive for osteoclastic lineage markers were plentiful, especially in the most rapidly growing areas. These cells appeared to be macrophages accompanying a growth rate so rapid as to resemble a response to trauma. In conclusion, appositional and resorptive periostea differ strikingly in morphology and cell content. Resorptive periosteum is a poor choice for osteogenic grafting.
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Anatomy © 2011 Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21223257      PMCID: PMC3058215          DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01336.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anat        ISSN: 0021-8782            Impact factor:   2.610


  56 in total

Review 1.  Toward an expanded understanding of the role of the periosteum in skeletal health.

Authors:  Eric S Orwoll
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  A study of the post-natal growth and remodeling of bone.

Authors:  D H ENLOW
Journal:  Am J Anat       Date:  1962-03

3.  A longitudinal radiographic study of the periosteal migration along the growing rabbit mandible.

Authors:  T H Frankenhuis-Van Den Heuvel; J C Maltha; A M Kuijpers-Jagtman; M A Van 't Hof
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 6.116

4.  Identification of key tissue type for antler regeneration through pedicle periosteum deletion.

Authors:  Chunyi Li; Colin G Mackintosh; Shirley K Martin; Dawn E Clark
Journal:  Cell Tissue Res       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 5.249

Review 5.  Alveolar bone and the alveolar process: the socket that is never stable.

Authors:  J L Saffar; J J Lasfargues; M Cherruau
Journal:  Periodontol 2000       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 7.589

6.  Morphology and maturation of the periosteum of the rat mandible.

Authors:  D A Chong; C A Evans; J D Heeley
Journal:  Arch Oral Biol       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 2.633

7.  Human femoral neck has less cellular periosteum, and more mineralized periosteum, than femoral diaphyseal bone.

Authors:  Matthew R Allen; David B Burr
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.398

8.  Characterization of circulating osteoblast lineage cells in humans.

Authors:  Guiti Z Eghbali-Fatourechi; Ulrike I L Mödder; Natthinee Charatcharoenwitthaya; Arunik Sanyal; Anita H Undale; Jackie A Clowes; James E Tarara; Sundeep Khosla
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-01-04       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 9.  Xenotransplantation of solid organs in the pig-to-primate model.

Authors:  Burcin Ekser; Paolo Rigotti; Bruno Gridelli; David K C Cooper
Journal:  Transpl Immunol       Date:  2008-10-26       Impact factor: 1.708

10.  Dominant negative Bmp5 mutation reveals key role of BMPs in skeletal response to mechanical stimulation.

Authors:  Andrew M Ho; Paul C Marker; Hairong Peng; Andres J Quintero; David M Kingsley; Johnny Huard
Journal:  BMC Dev Biol       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 1.978

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Periosteum: biology and applications in craniofacial bone regeneration.

Authors:  Z Lin; A Fateh; D M Salem; G Intini
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 6.116

2.  Sutures Possess Strong Regenerative Capacity for Calvarial Bone Injury.

Authors:  Shery Park; Hu Zhao; Mark Urata; Yang Chai
Journal:  Stem Cells Dev       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 3.272

3.  The suture provides a niche for mesenchymal stem cells of craniofacial bones.

Authors:  Hu Zhao; Jifan Feng; Thach-Vu Ho; Weston Grimes; Mark Urata; Yang Chai
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 28.824

4.  Preventing painful age-related bone fractures: Anti-sclerostin therapy builds cortical bone and increases the proliferation of osteogenic cells in the periosteum of the geriatric mouse femur.

Authors:  Michelle L Thompson; Stephane R Chartier; Stefanie A Mitchell; Patrick W Mantyh
Journal:  Mol Pain       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 3.395

Review 5.  Calvarial Suture-Derived Stem Cells and Their Contribution to Cranial Bone Repair.

Authors:  Daniel H Doro; Agamemnon E Grigoriadis; Karen J Liu
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 4.566

Review 6.  Extracellular vesicles in bone: "dogrobbers" in the "eternal battle field".

Authors:  Shi-Cong Tao; Shang-Chun Guo
Journal:  Cell Commun Signal       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 5.712

Review 7.  Signaling Mechanisms Underlying Genetic Pathophysiology of Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Xiaowei Wu; Yan Gu
Journal:  Int J Biol Sci       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 6.580

8.  Sialylation of TLR2 initiates osteoclast fusion.

Authors:  Ce Dou; Gehua Zhen; Yang Dan; Mei Wan; Nathachit Limjunyawong; Xu Cao
Journal:  Bone Res       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 13.567

Review 9.  Osteogenic and Neurogenic Stem Cells in Their Own Place: Unraveling Differences and Similarities Between Niches.

Authors:  Wanda Lattanzi; Roberta Parolisi; Marta Barba; Luca Bonfanti
Journal:  Front Cell Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 5.505

10.  PDGF-BB secreted by preosteoclasts induces angiogenesis during coupling with osteogenesis.

Authors:  Hui Xie; Zhuang Cui; Long Wang; Zhuying Xia; Yin Hu; Lingling Xian; Changjun Li; Liang Xie; Janet Crane; Mei Wan; Gehua Zhen; Qin Bian; Bin Yu; Weizhong Chang; Tao Qiu; Maureen Pickarski; Le Thi Duong; Jolene J Windle; Xianghang Luo; Eryuan Liao; Xu Cao
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 53.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.