| Literature DB >> 30092840 |
Cecilie Gjerde1, Kamal Mustafa2, Sølve Hellem3, Markus Rojewski4,5, Harald Gjengedal3, Mohammed Ahmed Yassin3,6, Xin Feng3, Siren Skaale3, Trond Berge3, Annika Rosen3, Xie-Qi Shi3, Aymen B Ahmed7,8,9, Bjørn Tore Gjertsen7,8,9, Hubert Schrezenmeier4,5, Pierre Layrolle10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autologous grafting, despite some disadvantages, is still considered the gold standard for reconstruction of maxillofacial bone defects. The aim of this study was to evaluate bone regeneration using bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) in a clinical trial, a less invasive approach than autologous bone grafting. This comprehensive clinical trial included subjects with severe mandibular ridge resorption.Entities:
Keywords: Alveolar ridge augmentation; Biphasic calcium phosphate; Bone regeneration; Bone tissue engineering; Dental implants; Mesenchymal stem cells
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30092840 PMCID: PMC6085689 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-018-0951-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 6.832
Study design and time schedule for the intervention
| Intervention | Day –21 (pre inclusion visit or earlier) | Day 0 (inclusion visit) | Days 12–14 | Month 1 | Month 6 | Month 9 | Month 18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verification of the selection criteria, information given to the patient, patient records and informed consent obtained | X | ||||||
| Panoramic X-ray scans | X | X | X | X | |||
| Loco-regional clinical examination | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Impression of both dental arches | X | X | |||||
| Facial and oral cavity photographs | X | X | |||||
| Dental radiographs | X | X | X | X | |||
| VAS score for pain | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Questionnaire on use of painkillers | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Bone marrow harvest | X | ||||||
| Grafting procedure | X | ||||||
| CBCT scan | X | X | X | X | |||
| Implant placement, bone biopsy | X | ||||||
| Resonance frequency Analysis (ISQ RFA) | X | X | X | ||||
| Implant loading (prosthesis) | X | ||||||
| Adverse events, clinical examination | X | X | X | X | X | X |
VAS visual analog scale, CBCT cone beam computer tomography, ISQ implant stability quotient, RFA resonance frequency analysis
Fig. 2Clinical procedure. a Narrow alveolar ridge before augmentation (arrow). b Mixture of BCP and MSCs placed on alveolar ridge. c Membrane placed over transplanted graft. d Soft tissue healing after 5 months. e New alveolar ridge after 5 months of healing. f Core biopsy taken and dental implant installed on newly formed bone. g Eight months post augmentation and 2 months after implant installation. h Implant-supported crown in occlusion
Fig. 1Cell attachment assay. A Syringes containing BCP granules (a) and MSCs (b). B Mixture of BCP and MSCs. C, D Cell attachment to biomaterial determined using DAPI staining after arrival at operating theater
Expansion of cells derived from bone marrow of 13 patients
| Patient number | BMSCs/μl BM number of MNCs | BMSCs/μl BM aspirate in passage 1 | Overall harvest after culture passage 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.46E + 03 | 2.98E + 04 | 3.06E + 08 |
| 2 | 1.13E + 04 | 1.52E + 05 | 4.12E + 08 |
| 3 | 3.59E + 03 | 2.89E + 04 | 2.46E + 08 |
| 4 | 1.83E + 04 | 2.44E + 05 | 4.05E + 08 |
| 5 | 5.74E + 01 | -a | -a |
| 6 | 4.77E + 03 | 6.27E + 04 | 4.02E + 08 |
| 7 | 5.03E + 02 | 5.27E + 03 | 5.33E + 07 |
| 8 | 1.61E + 03 | 2.26E + 04 | 2.86E + 08 |
| 9 | 1,64E + 03 | 1.67E + 04 | 1.55E + 08 |
| 10 | -b | -a | -a |
| 11 | 6.54E + 03 | 7.67E + 04 | 2.42E + 08 |
| 12 | 2.70E + 03 | 2.85E + 04 | 2.69E + 08 |
| 13 | 3.63E + 03 | 2.79E + 04 | 2.34E + 08 |
| Mean | 4.84E + 03 | 6.32E + 04 | 2.74E + 08 |
| SD | 4.98E + 03 | 6.91E + 04 | 1.04E + 08 |
BMSC bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cell, BM bone marrow, MNC mononuclear cell, SD standard deviation
aNo colony-forming unit fibroblast CFU-F growth
bInsufficient cell count
Clinical outcomes: demonstrates bone healing, increased bone width and volume
| Patient number | Age (years) | Sex | Healing time (weeks) | Increase in width (mm) | Increase in volume (mm3) | Implant placement | Crown delivered | Patient satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 75 | F | 27 | 4.5 | 902.92 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 | 67 | M | 25 | 3.7 | 1047.15 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | 55 | F | 26 | 3.9 | 1382.54 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4 | 62 | F | 18 | 1.1 | 440.93 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 6 | 52 | M | 21 | 4.9 | 1469.53 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7 left | 69 | M | 31 | 4.6 | 432.7 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7 right | 69 | M | 31 | 4.9 | 1187.21 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8 | 69 | M | 22 | 1.4 | 753.52 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 9 | 61 | F | 22 | 1.4 | 546.33 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 11 | 62 | F | 21 | 9.7 | 1188.47 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 12 left | 65 | F | 20 | 2.7 | 954.98 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 12 right | 65 | F | 20 | 3.4 | 418.36 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 13 left | 69 | F | 22 | 3.7 | 553.56 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 13 right | 69 | F | 22 | 6.8 | 1142.96 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
All patients received implants and prostheses
F female, M male
Fig. 3Cast of alveolar ridge. Before (a) and after (b) augmentation illustrating amount of bone reconstructed. Arrows indicate the width of the alveolar ridge
Fig. 4CBCT measurements. Overlapping of bone outline contours of superimposed models at T0 (before grafting, green) (a) and T1 (6 months after grafting, red) (b), achieved and viewed in axial (c), sagittal (d), and coronal (e) images of ridge before and after reconstruction
Fig. 5μ-CT and histological analyses. A μ-CT images of biopsies from Patients 1–10. B Histology of core biopsies from patients. Note abundant lamellar bone with entrapped osteocytes in extracellular matrix at high magnification around remaining BCP particles (*). a, c Hematoxylin and eosin staining, b, d Masson trichrome staining. Magnification ×1.25 and ×10
Mean values for each analyzed variable in relation to microstructural properties of the biopsies
| Patient | TV (mm3) | BV (mm3) | BV/TV (%) | Th.Tb (mm) | Tb.Sp (mm) | SMI | DA | FD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.187 | 1.2 | 23.131 | 0.023 | 0.131 | 0.542 | 1.153 | 2.63 |
| 2 | 5.436 | 0.961 | 17.677 | 0.046 | 0.251 | 0.277 | 1.29 | 2.485 |
| 3 | 4.717 | 0.495 | 10.501 | 0.004 | 0.359 | 0.742 | 1.367 | 2.256 |
| 4 | 5.333 | 0.963 | 18.055 | 0.039 | 0.288 | 0.354 | 1.256 | 2.467 |
| 5 | 5.358 | 0.791 | 14.762 | 0.033 | 0.279 | 0.529 | 1.107 | 2.422 |
| 7 | 4.933 | 0.741 | 15.022 | 0.031 | 0.239 | 0.215 | 1.410 | 2.46 |
| 8 | 5.546 | 0.881 | 15.891 | 0.045 | 0.255 | 0.812 | 1.549 | 2.46 |
| 9 | 4.413 | 0.568 | 12.867 | 0.032 | 0.25 | 0.437 | 1.333 | 2.390 |
| 11 | 5.064 | 1.106 | 21.844 | 0.051 | 0.180 | 0.740 | 1.144 | 2.542 |
| 12 | 5.488 | 0.567 | 10.317 | 0.037 | 0.246 | 0.609 | 1.333 | 2.433 |
In Patient 13, the biopsy disintegrated during transport and could not be measured. However, all dental implants have osseointegrated and are still in successful clinical function
TV tissue volume, BV bone volume, BV/TV bone volumetric fraction, Tb.Sp trabecular separation, Th.Tb Trabercular thickness, SMI structural model index, DA degree of anisotropy, FD fractal dimension
Fig. 6Ostell measurements. Implant installation (T0), at loading (T1), and at 18 months follow-up (T2). Data presented as mean ± SD showing increased implant stability after loading