| Literature DB >> 34722154 |
Tao Yang1,2, Maryam Tamaddon3, Le Jiang4,5, Jing Wang6,7, Ziyu Liu3, Zhongqun Liu4,5, Haoye Meng6, Yongqiang Hu6, Jianming Gao6, Xuan Yang6, Yanxu Zhao6, Yanling Wang4,5, Aiyuan Wang6, Qiong Wu8, Chaozong Liu3, Jiang Peng6, Xiaodan Sun4,5, Qingyun Xue1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; Bilayered scaffold; Biomechanical microenvironment; Long-term cartilage repair; Osteochondral repair
Year: 2021 PMID: 34722154 PMCID: PMC8526903 DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2021.09.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Translat ISSN: 2214-031X Impact factor: 5.191
Fig. 1Characterization of bilayered scaffold. A) macroscopical photos of bilayered scaffold, B) SEM image of cPLGA layer, C) SEM image and element distribution of Ti6Al4V layer, D) Raman spectrum of cPLGA, E) Compressive modulus of both layer, F) Absorbance of formazan (OD 450 nm) with scaffold at 1, 3, 5, 7days,
Fig. 2A) Osteogenic differentiation, Chondrogenic differentiation, Adipogenic differentiation (from left to right), B) Immunofluorescence Live (FDA)/Dead (PI) staining of BMSCs cultured on Ti6Al4V scaffold at 1, 4, 7days (the scale bar is 1 mm).
Fig. 3Macroscopic evaluation and biomechanical properties of repaired knees. A) The gross observation of rabbit articular osteochondral defect repair with control, cPLGA and bilayer groups at 4, 12, 24 weeks after implantation (the scale bar is 3 mm). B) The diagram of general view scores quantitative analysis of articular cartilage after repair. C) Histological score for subchondral bone evaluation after repair. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; and n.s. represents no significant difference.
Fig. 4Biomechanical evaluation of new subchondral bone and cartilage. A) The images of the scaffold group at 4, 12 and 24 weeks after implantation, were observed under 250x with built-in microscope of the nano-indenter. B) quantitative analysis of Young's modulus of representative the regenerative bone tissue at the center of the scaffold(a), the border of the scaffold(b), the normal trabecular tissue around the scaffold(c). C) quantitative analysis of cartilage mechanical properties with Young's modulus (MPa). ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; and n.s. represents no significant difference.
Fig. 5Microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) evaluation. A: Representative two-dimensional micro-CT images at each time point (the scale bar is 5 mm). B: The graphic simulated 3D model of bilayer group based on dates of micro-CT scan performed by mimics software, which indicated majority of new bone tissues located on both the surface and pores of scaffold from both diagonally and vertically angle. The yellow represents scaffold materials. The green recpresents bone tissue. C-G): Quantitative analysis of micro-CT of the new bone formation in the implantation region at 4, 12, 24 weeks after surgery (C) BV/TV (D) BMD (E) Tb.Th (F) Tb.Sp (G) Tb.N; n = 3 in each group; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; and n.s. represents no significant difference.
Fig. 6Toluidine blue staining of the osteochondral samples and magnifications of new cartilage (yellow square frame denotes subchondral layer, green square frame denotes cartilage layer).
Fig. 7H&E staining of the osteochondral samples and magnifications of new cartilage (yellow square frame denotes subchondral layer, green square frame denotes cartilage layer).