A comparison between the efficacy of Bio-Oss, hydroxyapatite tricalcium phosphate and combination of mesenchymal stem cells in inducing bone regeneration

Abstract

Background: Recently, tissue engineering has been introduced as a regenerative treatment for bone defects. There is some evidence showing bone regeneration from mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) loaded on hydroxyapatite β-tricalcium phosphate (HA/TCP) as a scaffold in large defects. This study aimed to compare the quality and quantity of regenerated bone using Bio-Oss, HA/TCP and MSC loaded HA/TCP scaffolds. Methods: Mesenchymal stem cells were aspirated from iliac crest bone marrow after extracting the first, second and third premolars and the first molar in five mature hybrid dogs. The cells were cultured and their osteogenic differentiation potential was evaluated after the third cell passage using Alizarin red staining in experimental conditions. The HA/TCP scaffold (3 x 3 x 3 mm) was loaded with undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells. Bilateral bone defects were then prepared in the jaws using trephine burs. The defects were randomly filled with HA/TCP, Bio-Oss, or HA/TCP + MSCs. One defect served as a control and was left as an empty cavity. All defects except the control defect were covered with an absorbable membrane. Histological and histomorphometric evaluations were conducted after 6 weeks and data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p < 0.05). Results: The empty cavity demonstrated more bone formation (60.80%) than the HA/TCP (44.93%) and Bio-Oss (40.60%) (p < 0.05) groups. However, the difference from the HA/TCP + MSCs group was not significant (46.38%) (p > 0.05). Conclusion: An MSC-loaded HA/TCP scaffold is a more effective alternative than Bio-OSS or HA/TCP in inducing bone regeneration.

Dental Stem Cell Migration on Pulp Ceiling Cavities Filled with MTA, Dentin Chips, or Bio-Oss

“…This is in agreement with the previously published literature where it has been shown that human osteosarcoma cell lines, osteoblasts [16], bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells [32], and human tooth germ cells [33] are able to adhere and grow on MTA and similarly osteoblasts [34], mesenchymal stem cells from peripheral blood [35], or mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow [36] can grow on Bio-Oss. Moreover, in the present study, we were able to directly compare the three materials and demonstrate for the first time that dental stem cells seemed to prefer dentin chips and MTA as opposed to Bio-Oss.…”

Enamel Matrix Derivative has No Effect on the Chondrogenic Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells

“…Current treatment options such as autologous bone or bone substitutes are often accompanied by limitations and serious complications, highlighting the necessity for an alternative treatment option to be developed (Arrington et al, 1996; Meijer et al, 2008; Vahabi et al, 2012; Wiggins et al, 2012). Reports on the ability of EMD to improve MSC osteogenesis are mixed (Narukawa et al, 2007b; Gawlitta et al, 2010; Jue et al, 2010; Qu et al, 2010; Grandin et al, 2012) while little is known about the effects of EMD on chondrogenesis of human MSCs.…”

Differences in the cytocompatibility of bone-plastic materials from xenogeneic hydroxyapatite with stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth and adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells

“…Они представляют собой композицию в виде «матрица-носитель + биологически активный компонент» [5]. В качестве матрицы-носителя, или скаффолда, для тканеинженерных конструкций нередко используют уже существующие костнопластические материалы [6]. В качестве основного биоактивного компонента тканеинженерных конструкций или активированных клетками костно-пластических материалов часто используются мультипотентные мезенхимальные стромальные клетки (ММСК) [7].…”