Repair processes of flat bones formed via intramembranous versus endochondral ossification

Inoue, Satoshi; Fujikawa, Kaoru; Matsuki-Fukushima, Miwako; Nakamura, Masanori

doi:10.1016/j.job.2020.01.007

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subsequently other studies confirmed the superior regenerative capacity of periosteum compared with alternative tissues [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. It has been shown that intact periosteum is able to heal large defects in both long and flat bones [24], so different clinical applications have been observed [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. In head and neck surgery some authors observed that preservation of periosteum in resective surgery, if oncologically safe, could lead to bone regeneration [32,33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Indeed, periosteum is an ideal niche with skeletal progenitor/stem cells, abundance of molecular signals, increased nutrient-rich blood supply and prevent soft tissue infection [20]. Subsequently other studies confirmed the superior regenerative capacity of periosteum compared with alternative tissues [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. It has been shown that intact periosteum is able to heal large defects in both long and flat bones [24], so different clinical applications have been observed [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors thought to take advantage of this property of the revascularized periosteum in the restoration of the bone loss of substance in post-traumatic fracture, chronic infections and oncological resections. The first applications regarded orthopaedic surgery [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]; subsequently, the attention was moved to maxillofacial district.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Free Periosteal Flaps with Scaffold: An Overlooked Armamentarium for Maxillary and Mandibular Reconstruction

Accorona

Gazzini

Grigolato

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Head and neck bone reconstruction is a challenging surgical scenario. Although several strategies have been described in the literature, bone free flaps (BFFs) have become the preferred technique for large defects. Revascularized free periosteal flaps (FPFs) with support scaffold represents a possible alternative in compromised patient, BFF failure, or relapsing cancers as salvage treatment. However, only few clinical applications in head and neck are reported in literature. Purpose of the study was to systematically analyse the results of functional and oncologic maxillary and mandibular reconstruction with FPF with scaffold. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive review of the dedicated literature was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines searching on Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Researchgate and Google Scholar databases using relevant keywords, phrases and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. An excursus on the most valuable FPF’ harvesting sites was also carried out. Results: A total of 7 studies with 55 patients were included. Overall, the majority of the patients (n = 54, 98.1%) underwent an FPF reconstruction of the mandibular site. The most used technique was the radial forearm FPF with autologous frozen bone as scaffold (n = 40, 72.7%). The overall rate of complications was 43.7%. The success rate intended as scaffold integration resulted to be 74.5%. Conclusions: Maxillary and mandibular reconstruction with FPF and scaffold is a possible alternative in patient unfit for complex BFF reconstruction and it should be considered as a valid alternative in the sequential salvage surgery for locally advanced cancer. Moreover, it opens future scenarios in head and neck reconstructive surgery, as a promising tool that can be modelled to tailor complex 3D defects, with less morbidities to the donor site.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Free Periosteal Flaps with Scaffold: An Overlooked Armamentarium for Maxillary and Mandibular Reconstruction

Accorona

Gazzini

Grigolato

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It remains an ongoing debate as to whether bone ossifies endochondrally or intramembranously in mice 20–23 . In craniofacial bones, it has been reported that bones of the cranial base and caudal cranial vault ossify endochondrally, while facial skeleton and rostral cranial vault ossify intramembranously 14,22,23 . Consistently, we found that intramembranous ossification exists in most craniofacial bones and in part of the clavicle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Type II collagen-positive progenitors are major stem cells to control skeleton development and vascular formation

Yang

Jing

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have revealed that type II collagen positive (Col2+) cells represent a kind of skeleton stem cells (SSC) and their descendants contribute to chondrocytes, osteoblasts, Cxcl12 (chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 12)-abundant stromal cells and bone marrow stromal/mesenchymal progenitor cells in postnatal life. To further elucidate the function of Col2+ progenitors, we generated mice with ablation of either embryonic or postnatal Col2+ cells. Embryonic ablation of Col2+ progenitors caused the mouse die at newborn with the absence of all skeleton except partial craniofacial bone, as well as multiple organ development defects and blood vessel loss. Postnatal ablation of Col2+ cells causes mouse growth retardation and collagenopathy phenotype. By examining Col2+ cells ablated mice, we found that, besides contributing to long bone and vertebral bone development, Col2+ cells are also involved in calvaria bone development. Meanwhile, Col2+ cells are the major cells to contribute all skeletal development including spine, rib and long bones. Moreover, our functional study provide evidence that intramembranous ossification is involved in craniofacial bone formation and long bone development, but not participates in spine development. By performing lineage tracing experiments in embryonic or postnatal mice, we discovered that the presence of Col2+ progenitors not only within the bone marrow and growth plate (GP) but also within articular cartilage. Moreover, the number and differentiation ability of Col2+ progenitors were decreased with age in long bone and knee. Furthermore, fate-mapping studies revealed that Col2+ progenitors also contributed to CD31+ blood vessel endothelial development in calvariae bone, long bone and many organs. Interestingly, we found only 25.4% CD31+ blood vessel endothelial in long bone but almost all the CD31+ blood vessel endothelial in calvariae bone are differentiated from Col2+ cells. Consistently, postnatal Col2+ cells differentiated to both chondrocytes and CD31+ blood vessel endothelial cells during bone fracture healing. Therefore, this study reveals that Col2+ progenitors are the major source of endochondral ossification, and they also contribute to vascular development in multiple organs and fracture repair.

show abstract

“…Indirect healing (also called endochondral ossification) incorporates the stage of formation and degradation of the cartilaginous callus before osteoblast differentiation. The healing pattern varies with respect to the fracture site, mode of injury, and mechanical environment [12][13][14]. Traditionally, the mechanism of intramembranous and endochondral ossification in animals has been studied for healing fractures in the calvarium and diaphysis of long bones, respectively [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Site-Specific Fracture Healing: Comparison between Diaphysis and Metaphysis in the Mouse Long Bone

Inoue¹,

Takito²,

Nakamura³

2021

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The process of fracture healing varies depending upon internal and external factors, such as the fracture site, mode of injury, and mechanical environment. This review focuses on site-specific fracture healing, particularly diaphyseal and metaphyseal healing in mouse long bones. Diaphyseal fractures heal by forming the periosteal and medullary callus, whereas metaphyseal fractures heal by forming the medullary callus. Bone healing in ovariectomized mice is accompanied by a decrease in the medullary callus formation both in the diaphysis and metaphysis. Administration of estrogen after fracture significantly recovers the decrease in diaphyseal healing but fails to recover the metaphyseal healing. Thus, the two bones show different osteogenic potentials after fracture in ovariectomized mice. This difference may be attributed to the heterogeneity of the skeletal stem cells (SSCs)/osteoblast progenitors of the two bones. The Hox genes that specify the patterning of the mammalian skeleton during embryogenesis are upregulated during the diaphyseal healing. Hox genes positively regulate the differentiation of osteoblasts from SSCs in vitro. During bone grafting, the SSCs in the donor’s bone express Hox with adaptability in the heterologous bone. These novel functions of the Hox genes are discussed herein with reference to the site-specificity of fracture healing.

show abstract

Repair processes of flat bones formed via intramembranous versus endochondral ossification

Cited by 19 publications

References 21 publications

Free Periosteal Flaps with Scaffold: An Overlooked Armamentarium for Maxillary and Mandibular Reconstruction

Free Periosteal Flaps with Scaffold: An Overlooked Armamentarium for Maxillary and Mandibular Reconstruction

Type II collagen-positive progenitors are major stem cells to control skeleton development and vascular formation

Site-Specific Fracture Healing: Comparison between Diaphysis and Metaphysis in the Mouse Long Bone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About