Ability of bone graft substitutes to support the osteoprogenitor cells: Anin-vitrostudy

Abstract

AIM:To compare seven commercially available bone graft substitutes (BGS) in terms of these properties and without using any additional biological growth factors. METHODS:Porcine osteoprogenitor cells were loaded on seven commercially available BGS and allowed to proliferate for one week followed by osteogenic induction. Staining for live/dead cells as well as scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was carried out to determine viability and cellular binding. Further outcome measures included alkaline phosphatase (ALP) assays with normalisation for DNA content to quantify osteogenic potential. Negative and positive control experiments were carried out in parallel to validate the results. RESULTS:Live/dead and SEM imaging showed higher viability and attachment with β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) than with other BGS (P < 0.05). The average ALP activity in nmol/mL (normalised value for DNA content in nmol/µg DNA) per sample was 657. CONCLUSION:Under the above experimental conditions, β-TCP was able to maintain better the viability of osteoprogenitor cells and allow proliferation and differentiation (P < 0.05).© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.Key words: Bone graft; Bone graft substitute; Osteoprogenitor cells; Fracture healing; Bone Core tip: Various commercially available bone graft substitutes (BGS) exist today and are used for the restoration of bone defects resulting from traumatic injury, tumor resection and congenital or degenerative diseases. Such BGS should pose osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties and support cell response to the osteogenic signalling. This study evaluated seven commercially available BGS in terms of osteoprogenitor cell adherence, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation. β-tricalcium phosphate was found to have the most favourable effect on cell viability and allow for their subsequent proliferation and differentiation.

Is there a role of coral bone substitutes in bone repair?

“…1 Autologous bone grafting has all the properties of the ideal graft material, being an osteoinductive and osteoconductive scaffold with no immunogenicity and containing significant numbers of osteoprogenitor cells. 2,3 However, its use has several drawbacks including limited availability, variable graft quality, increased operative time and donor site morbidity. 4 To overcome the increasing need for bone graft materials, research has focused on the development of novel bone graft substitutes.…”

The role of peptides in bone healing and regeneration: a systematic review

“…Approximately 5 % to 10 % of the fractures occurring are associated with impaired healing, including delayed union or non-union [ 1 – 5 ]. Fracture non-union often results in devastating outcomes for the patient and the surgeon [ 2 , 5 , 6 ], requiring a complex, long-lasting and expensive treatment, and a variable degree of morbidity is often a common finding [ 2 , 7 , 8 ].…”

Capacidade osteorregenerativa da elastina, hidroxiapatita e proteí­na morfogenética óssea no tratamento de defeitos femorais em ratos

“…Além disso, estes biomateriais osteocondutores são semelhantes a parte inorgânica do osso, favorecendo a osteointegração (RATNAYAKE;MUCALO;DIAS, 2017;VITAL et al, 2006;ZIMMERMANN;MOGHADDAM, 2011). Quando atuam em compósitos porosos, contribuem decisivamente no processo de regeneração dos defeitos ósseos (DAHABREH et al, 2014;KURIEN;PEARSON;SCAMMELL, 2013;PRAKASAM et al, 2017;VELASCO; NARVAEZ-TOVAR; GARZON-ALVARADO, 2015), como observado no presente estudo em G6-E96/37/HA devido ao maior volume neoformado.…”

“…Ao comparar os grupos com BMP (G4 e G7) notou-se maior volume ósseo para aquela membrana com menor tamanho do poro (G4), estando de acordo com a afirmativa de Dahabreh et al (2014) GARZON-ALVARADO, 2015).…”

“…) Dahabreh et al (2014). compararam as características de micro e macroporosidade de sete tipos de substitutos de enxertos ósseos.…”