Bing Zhang1, Pei-Biao Zhang2, Zong-Liang Wang2, Zhong-Wen Lyu3, Han Wu4. 1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun 130041, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Polymer Ecomaterials, Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130022, China. 3. Department of Radiology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun 130033, China. 4. Department of Orthopedics, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun 130033, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A new therapeutic strategy using nanocomposite scaffolds of grafted hydroxyapatite (g-HA)/ poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) carried with autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) was assessed for the therapy of critical bone defects. At the same time, tissue response and in vivo mineralization of tissue-engineered implants were investigated. METHODS: A composite scaffold of PLGA and g-HA was fabricated by the solvent casting and particulate-leaching method. The tissue-engineered implants were prepared by seeding the scaffolds with autologous bone marrow MSCs in vitro. Then, mineralization and osteogenesis were observed by intramuscular implantation, as well as the repair of the critical radius defects in rabbits. RESULTS: After eight weeks post-surgery, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) revealed that g-HA/PLGA had a better interface of tissue response and higher mineralization than PLGA. Apatite particles were formed and varied both in macropores and micropores of g-HA/PLGA. Computer radiographs and histological analysis revealed that there were more and more quickly formed new bone formations and better fusion in the bone defect areas of g-HA/PLGA at 2-8 weeks post-surgery. Typical bone synostosis between the implant and bone tissue was found in g-HA/PLGA, while only fibrous tissues formed in PLGA. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of g-HA mainly improved mineralization and bone formation compared with PLGA. The application of MSCs can enhance bone formation and mineralization in PLGA scaffolds compared with cell-free scaffolds. Furthermore, it can accelerate the absorption of scaffolds compared with composite scaffolds.
OBJECTIVE: A new therapeutic strategy using nanocomposite scaffolds of grafted hydroxyapatite (g-HA)/ poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) carried with autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) was assessed for the therapy of critical bone defects. At the same time, tissue response and in vivo mineralization of tissue-engineered implants were investigated. METHODS: A composite scaffold of PLGA and g-HA was fabricated by the solvent casting and particulate-leaching method. The tissue-engineered implants were prepared by seeding the scaffolds with autologous bone marrow MSCs in vitro. Then, mineralization and osteogenesis were observed by intramuscular implantation, as well as the repair of the critical radius defects in rabbits. RESULTS: After eight weeks post-surgery, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) revealed that g-HA/PLGA had a better interface of tissue response and higher mineralization than PLGA. Apatite particles were formed and varied both in macropores and micropores of g-HA/PLGA. Computer radiographs and histological analysis revealed that there were more and more quickly formed new bone formations and better fusion in the bone defect areas of g-HA/PLGA at 2-8 weeks post-surgery. Typical bone synostosis between the implant and bone tissue was found in g-HA/PLGA, while only fibrous tissues formed in PLGA. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of g-HA mainly improved mineralization and bone formation compared with PLGA. The application of MSCs can enhance bone formation and mineralization in PLGA scaffolds compared with cell-free scaffolds. Furthermore, it can accelerate the absorption of scaffolds compared with composite scaffolds.
Entities:
Keywords:
Nanocomposite; Surface modification; Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells; Biomineralization; Bone repair
Authors: Inga Drosse; Elias Volkmer; Rodolfo Capanna; Pietro De Biase; Wolf Mutschler; Matthias Schieker Journal: Injury Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: W-J Wan-Ju Li; Richard Tuli; Chukwuka Okafor; Assia Derfoul; K G Keith G Danielson; D J David J Hall; R S Rocky S Tuan Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: G Ciapetti; L Ambrosio; L Savarino; D Granchi; E Cenni; N Baldini; S Pagani; S Guizzardi; F Causa; A Giunti Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Rosa Angelica Gonzalez-Vilchis; Angelica Piedra-Ramirez; Carlos Cesar Patiño-Morales; Concepcion Sanchez-Gomez; Nohra E Beltran-Vargas Journal: Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 4.169
Authors: Marcela P Bernardo; Bruna C R da Silva; Ahmed E I Hamouda; Marcelo A S de Toledo; Carmen Schalla; Stephan Rütten; Roman Goetzke; Luiz H C Mattoso; Martin Zenke; Antonio Sechi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Vivian Wu; Marco N Helder; Nathalie Bravenboer; Christiaan M Ten Bruggenkate; Jianfeng Jin; Jenneke Klein-Nulend; Engelbert A J M Schulten Journal: Stem Cells Int Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 5.443