2001
DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200110001-00005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Growth Responses of Cartilage to Static and Dynamic Compression

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
29
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
5
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on these studies, in vivo joint contact pressures are estimated to generally range from 1.0 to 2.5 MPa (and up to 10 MPa for peak loading). The findings in the current and previous studies that both fibrous joints (e.g., the disc) and articular joints generally exist in a 0.5 to 2.5 MPa dynamic stress environment may not be coincidental because chondrocytes are metabolically most active in this load range [81][82][83][84][85][86]. A stress environment that is static, too low, or too high results in decreased chondrocyte proteoglycan production, increased protein degradation, and chondrocyte cell death [85;87-91].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…Based on these studies, in vivo joint contact pressures are estimated to generally range from 1.0 to 2.5 MPa (and up to 10 MPa for peak loading). The findings in the current and previous studies that both fibrous joints (e.g., the disc) and articular joints generally exist in a 0.5 to 2.5 MPa dynamic stress environment may not be coincidental because chondrocytes are metabolically most active in this load range [81][82][83][84][85][86]. A stress environment that is static, too low, or too high results in decreased chondrocyte proteoglycan production, increased protein degradation, and chondrocyte cell death [85;87-91].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…It should also be noted that the suppressive effect of static compression on the expression [42,43] and synthesis [44][45][46][47][48][49] of structural proteins by chondrocytes has been well-documented, and may well provide a partial explanation for the regional variations in response to equivalent mechanical loading. That is, the greater upregulation of both CII and aggrecan in central region compared with peripheral region cartilage explants may simply reflect the lesser creep consolidation experienced by those samples under dynamic unconfined compression, suggesting that the regional differences in gene expression might reflect the regional differences in mechanical properties as well as thickness.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mechanical loading has been identified as an important regulator of cartilage cells (i.e., chondrocytes) and overall tissue quality ; Guilak et al 2001; Li et al 2001). The role of mechanical loading on chondrocyte function has been examined in cartilage explants (Kim et al 1995;Davisson et al 2002), high density cell pellets (Graff et al 2003), and 3-D scaffolds (Mauck et For example, when a 1 Hz unconfined dynamic strain of 15% was applied to chondrocytes encapsulated in two different hydrogels for 48 hours, proteoglycan synthesis increased by 40% in agarose (Lee and Bader 1997), but decreased by 10% in PEG gels (Bryant et al 2004b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%