| Literature DB >> 29728886 |
Tiago Lazzaretti Fernandes1,2, Kazunori Shimomura3, Andre Asperti4, Carla Cristina Gomes Pinheiro5, Heloísa Vasconcellos Amaral Caetano5, Claudia Regina G C M Oliveira4, Norimasa Nakamura6, Arnaldo José Hernandez4, Daniela Franco Bueno5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chondral lesion is a pathology with high prevalence, reaching as much as 63% of general population and 36% among athletes. The ability of human Dental Pulp Stem Cells (DPSCs) to differentiate into chondroblasts in vitro suggests that this stem cell type may be useful for tissue bioengineering. However, we have yet to identify a study of large animal models in which DPSCs were used to repair articular cartilage. Therefore, this study aimed to describe a novel treatment for cartilage lesion with DPSCs on a large animal model.Entities:
Keywords: Articular cartilage; Human dental pulp stem cells; Hyaline cartilage, pre-clinical study, large animal model, miniature pig; Mesenchymal stem cells; Tissue engineering
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29728886 PMCID: PMC6132738 DOI: 10.1007/s12015-018-9820-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Rev Rep ISSN: 2629-3277 Impact factor: 5.739
Fig. 1Left Side: Cartilage Defect (6-Mm Diameter) In The Inferior Femoral Condyle After Calcified Cartilage Layer Removal. Right Side: Scaffold With Mesenchymal Stem Cells Sutured Into Defect
Fig. 2Flow Cytometry Analysis Showing Positive Reactions To Mesenchymal Markers (CD29, CD73, CD105, CD90, CD166 And CD44) And Negative Reactions To Hematopoietic (CD34 And CD45) And Endothelial Markers (CD31)
Fig. 3Transmission Electron Micrographs Of The Ultrastructure Of The Mesenchymal Stem Cells Derived From Dental Pulp Showing (a) Intracellular Organelles And Nuclear Morphology, Including Heterochromatin, Euchromatin, And Nucleolus (Original Magnification 15,000×). b Microvilli On The Cell Surface. Structural Surface Modifications Of Cell–Cell (a) And Cell–Extracellular Matrix Interactions At The Border Zone (b) (Star). (Original Magnification 15,000×) (Abbreviations: ER, Endoplasmic Reticulum; H, Heterochromatin; E, Euchromatin; Nu, Nucleolus; M, Mitochondria; Mi, Microvilli)
Macroscopic scoring system example (ICRS macroscopic evaluation of cartilage repair [21]) – Miniature pig 1
| Cartilage repair assessment ICRS | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyaline cartilage | Scaffold only | Scaffold + DPSCs | ||
| 1. Degree of defect repair | 4 | 1 | 3 | |
| In level with surrounding cartilage | 4 | |||
| 75% repair of defect depth | 3 | |||
| 50% repair of defect depth | 2 | |||
| 25% repair of defect depth | 1 | |||
| 0% repair of defect depth | 0 | |||
| 2. Integration to border zone | 4 | 0 | 2 | |
| Complete integration with surrounding cartilage | 4 | |||
| Demarcating border <1 mm | 3 | |||
| 3/4th of graft integrated, 1/4th with a notable border >1 mm width | 2 | |||
| 1/2 of graft integrated with surrounding cartilage, 1/2 with a notable border >1 mm | 1 | |||
| From no contact to 1/4th of graft integrated with surrounding cartilage | 0 | |||
| 3. Macroscopic appearance | 4 | 0 | 1 | |
| Intact smooth surface | 4 | |||
| Fibrillated surface | 3 | |||
| Small, scattered fissures or cracs | 2 | |||
| Several, small or few but large fissures | 1 | |||
| Total degeneration of grafted area | 0 | |||
| Overall repair assessment | 12 | 1 | 7 | |
| Grade I: normal | 12 | |||
| Grade II: nearly normal | 11–8 | |||
| Grade III: abnormal | 7–4 | |||
| Grade IV: severely abnormal | ||||
Histological scoring system example (Modified form O’Driscoll et al.) [22] – Miniature pig 1
| Characteristics | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyaline cartilage | Scaffold only | Scaffold + DPSCs | ||
| 1. Cell morphology | 4 | 2 | 2 | |
| Hyaline like articular cartilage | 4 | |||
| Partial differentiated hyaline cartilage | 2 | |||
| Fibrous tissue | 0 | |||
| 2. Integrity of surface | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| Surface smooth and intact | 4 | |||
| Surface horizontal fibrillation | 2 | |||
| Surface shows fissures to 25–100% of the depth of the cartilage | 1 | |||
| Serious deep interruption of the surface and many deep fibrillations | 0 | |||
| 3. Thickness | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| 100% of normal host cartilage | 2 | |||
| 50–100% of normal cartilage | 1 | |||
| 0–50% | 0 | |||
| 4. Surface of area filled with cells | 3 | 0 | 1 | |
| 100–75% | 3 | |||
| 75–50% | 2 | |||
| 50–25% | 1 | |||
| 25–0% | 0 | |||
| 5. Chondrocyte clustering | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| None at all | 2 | |||
| < 25% of the cells | 1 | |||
| 25–100% of the cells | 0 | |||
| 6. Degenerative changes | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Normal cell quantity, no clustering, normal staining with proteoglycan specific stain | 3 | |||
| Normal cell quantity, some cluster formation, moderate staining | 2 | |||
| Clearly less cells, poor staining | 1 | |||
| View cells, no or very little staining | 0 | |||
| 7. Restoration of the subchondral bone | 4 | 2 | 2 | |
| Normal and straight | 4 | |||
| Slight contour changes | 2 | |||
| Larger interruptions in subchondral bone | 1 | |||
| Defect | 0 | |||
| 8. Integration | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Both sides of repair tissue integrated with host cartilage | 2 | |||
| One side integrated | 1 | |||
| No integration | 0 | |||
| Total maximal score = 23 | 23 | 13 | 15 | |
Fig. 4Macroscopic Examination Of Condyle Cartilage Defects After 6 Weeks In A Knee Treated With A Scaffold Containing No Dpscs (a) And A Scaffold Plus Dpscs (b). Dotted Circle: Area Of The Original Defect; Arrow: Irregular Coverage Of The Defect In The DPSC-Treated Sample; Arrowheads: Tissue Growth Over The Cartilage
Fig. 5Histology Of The Scaffold Plus DPSC-Treated (a, c & e) And Scaffold-Treated Samples (b, d & f). A & B: Lower Magnification; C & D: Transition Zone; E & F: Cell Morphology. Legend: Narrow Head - Transition Zone; Surface (S); Adjacent Cartilage (AC); Critical Size Defect (CD), Endochondral Ossification Layer (OL); Fibroblastic Proliferation (Fb)