| Literature DB >> 31717551 |
Alberto M Crovace1, Alessia Di Giancamillo2, Francesca Gervaso3,4, Laura Mangiavini5,6, Davide Zani2, Francesca Scalera3,4, Barbara Palazzo3, Daniela Izzo3, Marco Agnoletto5, Marco Domenicucci7, Corrado Sosio5, Alessandro Sannino3, Mauro Di Giancamillo2, Giuseppe M Peretti5,6.
Abstract
Osteochondral defects are a common problem in both human medicine and veterinary practice although with important limits concerning the cartilaginous tissue regeneration. Interest in the subchondral bone has grown, as it is now considered a key element in the osteochondral defect healing. The aim of this work was to generate and to evaluate the architecture of three cell-free scaffolds made of collagen, magnesium/hydroxyapatite and collagen hydroxyapatite/wollastonite to be implanted in a sheep animal model. Scaffolds were designed in a bilayer configuration and a novel "Honey" configuration, where columns of hydroxyapatite were inserted within the collagen matrix. The use of different types of scaffolds allowed us to identify the best scaffold in terms of integration and tissue regeneration. The animals included were divided into four groups: three were treated using different types of scaffold while one was left untreated and represented the control group. Evaluations were made at 3 months through CT analysis. The novel "Honey" configuration of the scaffold with hydroxyapatite seems to allow for a better reparative process, although we are still far from obtaining a complete restoration of the defect at this time point of follow-up.Entities:
Keywords: biomaterials; osteochondral defects; scaffold
Year: 2019 PMID: 31717551 PMCID: PMC6958333 DOI: 10.3390/vetsci6040090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Sci ISSN: 2306-7381
Design of osteochondral scaffold used in the in vivo study. For each configuration tested, sample names and the materials used to produce the scaffold (both cartilage and bone substitute) are reported.
| Osteochondral Scaffold Sketch | Osteochondral Scaffold Configuration | Sample Name | Scaffold Material | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top View | Side View | Cartilage Scaffold | Bone Scaffold | ||
|
|
| Bilayer | BWS | Collagen | Blend WS/HA |
|
|
| Honey | HWS | Collagen | Blend WS/HA |
|
|
| Honey | HMG | Collagen | Mg-doped HA |
|
| |||||
Experimental conditions for the tomographic acquisition.
| Voltage (kV) | Current (µA) | Voxel Size (µm3) | Exposure Time (s) | Projections | Scan Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 65 | 145 | 12.5 × 12.5 × 12.5 | 1.250 | 1400 | 176 |
Figure 1Osteochondral lesion practiced with custom made instruments. (A) Core millimeter punch before its application. (B) Core millimeter punch inserted to a depth of 9 mm. (C) Hand drill inserted in the sleeve. (D) Scaffold inserted with press-fit technique. (E) Scaffold implanted in situ.
Figure 2X-ray diffraction pattern of pure hydroxyapatite (HA), magnesium-doped hydroxyapatite (HA_Mg), hydroxyapatite/wollastonite composite (HA/WS) ceramic scaffold. X-ray diffraction pattern of pure hydroxyapatite (HA) ceramic scaffold has been reported for comparison.
Figure 3SEM images of the collagen component (left) and of ceramic component (right) of Bi-layer configuration and Honey configuration.
Figure 4MicroCT images of the whole Honey scaffold (left) and of the ceramic pillars (right). Scale bar = 2 mm. (Please note that images are not orthogonal projections but are in perspective and as a consequence of it the scale bar can give only indicative information).
Figure 5Maximum stress at failure of both Honey and Bi-layer configurations tested in compression (left) and a typical stress–strain curve of a Honey scaffold (right) in which it is possible to distinguish four main peaks corresponding to the four pillars break.
Figure 6CT evaluation of the three biphasic scaffolds. (a) Radiologic pictures of the experimental groups; a representative lesion for each experimental group is shown. Control (CTRL): (a); HMG: (b); HWS: (c); BWS: (d).
Figure 7Macroscopic evaluation of the three biphasic scaffolds. A representative lesion for each experimental group is shown. CTRL: (a); HMG: (b); HWS: (c); BWS: (d). The filling level of the experimental samples was different, and it was characterized by a poor amount of reparative tissue.