| Literature DB >> 24822206 |
Yan Chen1, Yuting Yan2, Xiaoming Li3, He Li2, Huiting Tan2, Huajun Li2, Yanwen Zhu2, Philipp Niemeyer4, Matin Yaega4, Bo Yu5.
Abstract
To date, fiber reinforce scaffolds have been largely applied to repair hard and soft tissues. Meanwhile, monitoring the scaffolds for long periods in vivo is recognized as a crucial issue before its wide use. As a consequence, there is a growing need for noninvasive and convenient methods to analyze the implantation remolding process in situ and in real time. In this paper, diagnostic medical ultrasound was used to monitor the in vivo bone formation and degradation process of the novel mineralized collagen fiber reinforced composite which is synthesized by chitosan (CS), nanohydroxyapatite (nHA), and collagen fiber (Col). To observe the impact of cells on bone remodeling process, the scaffolds were planted into the back of the SD rats with and without rat bone mesenchymal stem cells (rBMSCs). Systematic data of scaffolds in vivo was extracted from ultrasound images. Significant consistency between the data from the ultrasound and DXA could be observed (P < 0.05). This indicated that ultrasound may serve as a feasible alternative for noninvasive monitoring the evolution of scaffolds in situ during cell growth.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24822206 PMCID: PMC4009107 DOI: 10.1155/2014/418302
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Schematic showing design of the study.
Figure 2Ultrasound images of implanted scaffold over time, showing the evolution of constructs of the two groups (scaffold or scaffold/rBMSCs). The ROIs were signed by translucent yellow overlays.
Experimental data values for gray-scale value of the scaffold group and scaffold/rBMSCs group over time.
| Time (w) | GV |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scaffold (mean ± SD) | Scaffold/BMSCs (mean ± SD) | ||
| 0 | 63.85 ± 7.7 | 62.07 ± 5.49 | 0.655 |
| 1 | 82.88 ± 5.04 | 87.73 ± 7.17 | 0.205 |
| 2 | 99.29 ± 2.13 | 105.23 ± 14.03 | 0.35 |
| 4 | 111.85 ± 6.76 | 122.53 ± 6.03 | 0.016* |
| 6 | 127.23 ± 6.35 | 140.93 ± 6.57 | 0.004** |
| 8 | 144.99 ± 10.31 | 165.08 ± 5.95 | 0.011* |
| 10 | 155.44 ± 8.51 | 173.09 ± 11.14 | 0.016* |
| 12 | 176.62 ± 13.75 | 200.99 ± 12.39 | 0.009** |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Figure 3Ultrasound outcome indicating mean echo intensity (GV) of implant site for week 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 postsurgery (n = 9 in each group). Results were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9).
Measured GV by ultrasound and BMD by DXA of radius, femur, tibia, pelvis, 7th cervical vertebrae, 1st & 2nd & 3rd lumbar vertebra in rats. Average values were calculated and recorded for each measurements (n = 5).
| Detection part | GV by ultrasound | BMD (g·cm−2) by DXA |
|---|---|---|
| Radius | 182 | 0.075 |
| Femur | 250 | 0.106 |
| Tibia | 197 | 0.088 |
| Pelvis (ilium) | 255 | 0.111 |
| Vertebrae C7 | 190 | 0.089 |
| Vertebrae LI | 204 | 0.091 |
| Vertebrae L2 | 213 | 0.098 |
| Vertebrae L3 | 225 | 0.099 |
Calcification and degradation characteristics of scaffolds at each time point.
| Time (w) | Calcification rate (%) (mean ± SD) | Degradation rate (%) ( mean ± SD ) | Calcification rate/degradation rate | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scaffold | Scaffold/BMSCs |
| Scaffold | Scaffold/BMSCs |
| Scaffold | Scaffold/BMSCs |
| |
| 1 | 4.07 ± 0.4 | 4.43 ± 0.9 | 0.389 | 8.41 ± 1.1 | 8.84 ± 0.7 | 0.445 | 0.49 ± 0.02 | 0.5 ± 0.08 | 0.688 |
| 2 | 6.36 ± 1.4 | 7.97 ± 2.2 | 0.157 | 14.94 ± 2.4 | 13.21 ± 2.6 | 0.258 | 0.42 ± 0.04 | 0.62 ± 0.18 | 0.042* |
| 4 | 13.76 ± 3.6 | 15.96 ± 0.8 | 0.201 | 25.1 ± 4.3 | 20.91 ± 3.3 | 0.09 | 0.55 ± 0.1 | 0.78 ± 0.12 | 0.004** |
| 6 | 18.55 ± 4.5 | 27.27 ± 2 | 0.001** | 35.21 ± 2.6 | 35.68 ± 7.5 | 0.888 | 0.52 ± 0.11 | 0.78 ± 0.12 | 0.003** |
| 8 | 31.16 ± 8.5 | 42.83 ± 7.3 | 0.023* | 54.44 ± 6.8 | 56.49 ± 1.7 | 0.504 | 0.57 ± 0.11 | 0.76 ± 0.13 | 0.021* |
| 10 | 40.69 ± 7.2 | 55.25 ± 8.3 | 0.009** | 67.32 ± 2.7 | 64.3 ± 4.4 | 0.636 | 0.61 ± 0.11 | 0.83 ± 0.12 | 0.007** |
| 12 | 55.65 ± 6 | 66.23 ± 7.2 | 0.02* | 75.59 ± 5.3 | 76.89 ± 4.3 | 0.649 | 0.74 ± 0.05 | 0.86 ± 0.1 | 0.02* |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Figure 4Regeneration property (a) and degradation property (b) of implant via ultrasound over time. Calcification rate versus degradation rate was calculated (c). Results were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9); *P < 0.05 as compared to control group with no cells added.
The kurtosis coefficient showing internal uniformity of scaffold at each time point.
| Time (w) | Ultrasonic kurtosis coefficient |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scaffold | Scaffold/BMSCs (mean ± SD) | ||
| 0 | 9.89 ± 0.89 | 10.55 ± 0.72 | 0.187 |
| 1 | 3.8 ± 1.2 | 5.15 ± 1.24 | 0.084 |
| 2 | 0.69 ± 1.52 | 3.08 ± 1.31 | 0.016* |
| 4 | −0.14 ± 1.18 | 0.83 ± 1.35 | 0.961 |
| 6 | −0.39 ± 1.9 | 4.34 ± 1.15 | 0.001** |
| 8 | 1.35 ± 2.48 | 3.14 ± 1.18 | 0.142 |
| 10 | 1.07 ± 1.24 | 5.93 ± 2.3 | 0.002** |
| 12 | 5 ± 1.21 | 12.9 ± 3.43 | 0.002** |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Figure 5Graph of ultrasonic kurtosis coefficient of scaffold group and scaffold/rBMSCs group over time. Results were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9); *P < 0.05 as compared to control group with no cells added.
Figure 6Linear regression plots (solid lines) of estimated BMD by ultrasound versus the measurements by DXA at different implant sites (a). Bland-Altman plots for agreement of data by ultrasound and DXA (b).