Literature DB >> 26004222

BMP delivery complements the guiding effect of scaffold architecture without altering bone microstructure in critical-sized long bone defects: A multiscale analysis.

A Cipitria1, W Wagermaier2, P Zaslansky3, H Schell3, J C Reichert4, P Fratzl2, D W Hutmacher5, G N Duda6.   

Abstract

Scaffold architecture guides bone formation. However, in critical-sized long bone defects additional BMP-mediated osteogenic stimulation is needed to form clinically relevant volumes of new bone. The hierarchical structure of bone determines its mechanical properties. Yet, the micro- and nanostructure of BMP-mediated fast-forming bone has not been compared with slower regenerating bone without BMP. We investigated the combined effects of scaffold architecture (physical cue) and BMP stimulation (biological cue) on bone regeneration. It was hypothesized that a structured scaffold directs tissue organization through structural guidance and load transfer, while BMP stimulation accelerates bone formation without altering the microstructure at different length scales. BMP-loaded medical grade polycaprolactone-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds were implanted in 30mm tibial defects in sheep. BMP-mediated bone formation after 3 and 12 months was compared with slower bone formation with a scaffold alone after 12 months. A multiscale analysis based on microcomputed tomography, histology, polarized light microscopy, backscattered electron microscopy, small angle X-ray scattering and nanoindentation was used to characterize bone volume, collagen fiber orientation, mineral particle thickness and orientation, and local mechanical properties. Despite different observed kinetics in bone formation, similar structural properties on a microscopic and sub-micron level seem to emerge in both BMP-treated and scaffold only groups. The guiding effect of the scaffold architecture is illustrated through structural differences in bone across different regions. In the vicinity of the scaffold increased tissue organization is observed at 3 months. Loading along the long bone axis transferred through the scaffold defines bone micro- and nanostructure after 12 months.
Copyright © 2015 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMP (bone morphogenetic protein); Bone micro- and nanostructure; Critical-sized defect; Scaffold architecture; X-ray scattering

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26004222     DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.05.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Biomater        ISSN: 1742-7061            Impact factor:   8.947


  12 in total

Review 1.  3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.

Authors:  Gareth Turnbull; Jon Clarke; Frédéric Picard; Philip Riches; Luanluan Jia; Fengxuan Han; Bin Li; Wenmiao Shu
Journal:  Bioact Mater       Date:  2017-12-01

2.  A preclinical large-animal model for the assessment of critical-size load-bearing bone defect reconstruction.

Authors:  David S Sparks; Siamak Saifzadeh; Flavia Medeiros Savi; Constantin E Dlaska; Arne Berner; Jan Henkel; Johannes C Reichert; Martin Wullschleger; Jiongyu Ren; Amaia Cipitria; Jacqui A McGovern; Roland Steck; Michael Wagels; Maria Ann Woodruff; Michael A Schuetz; Dietmar W Hutmacher
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 13.491

3.  Combination of BMP2 and EZH2 Inhibition to Stimulate Osteogenesis in a 3D Bone Reconstruction Model.

Authors:  Hayman Lui; Rebekah M Samsonraj; Cedryck Vaquette; Janet Denbeigh; Sanjeev Kakar; Simon M Cool; Amel Dudakovic; Andre J van Wijnen
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 4.080

Review 4.  Animal models for bone tissue engineering and modelling disease.

Authors:  Jacqui Anne McGovern; Michelle Griffin; Dietmar Werner Hutmacher
Journal:  Dis Model Mech       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 5.758

5.  50 years of scanning electron microscopy of bone-a comprehensive overview of the important discoveries made and insights gained into bone material properties in health, disease, and taphonomy.

Authors:  Furqan A Shah; Krisztina Ruscsák; Anders Palmquist
Journal:  Bone Res       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 13.567

6.  Optimization of Bone Scaffold Porosity Distributions.

Authors:  Patrina S P Poh; Dvina Valainis; Kaushik Bhattacharya; Martijn van Griensven; Patrick Dondl
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Spatio-temporal characterization of fracture healing patterns and assessment of biomaterials by time-lapsed in vivo micro-computed tomography.

Authors:  Esther Wehrle; Duncan C Tourolle Né Betts; Gisela A Kuhn; Erica Floreani; Malavika H Nambiar; Bryant J Schroeder; Sandra Hofmann; Ralph Müller
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Tailored Three-Dimensionally Printed Triply Periodic Calcium Phosphate Implants: A Preclinical Study for Craniofacial Bone Repair.

Authors:  Arnaud Paré; Baptiste Charbonnier; Pierre Tournier; Caroline Vignes; Joëlle Veziers; Julie Lesoeur; Boris Laure; Hélios Bertin; Gonzague De Pinieux; Grégory Cherrier; Jérome Guicheux; Olivier Gauthier; Pierre Corre; David Marchat; Pierre Weiss
Journal:  ACS Biomater Sci Eng       Date:  2019-11-22

9.  Sustained dual release of placental growth factor-2 and bone morphogenic protein-2 from heparin-based nanocomplexes for direct osteogenesis.

Authors:  Yun Liu; Li-Zhi Deng; Hai-Peng Sun; Jia-Yun Xu; Yi-Ming Li; Xin Xie; Li-Ming Zhang; Fei-Long Deng
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2016-03-22

Review 10.  The Role of Three-Dimensional Scaffolds in Treating Long Bone Defects: Evidence from Preclinical and Clinical Literature-A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alice Roffi; Gopal Shankar Krishnakumar; Natalia Gostynska; Elizaveta Kon; Christian Candrian; Giuseppe Filardo
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.