The Nature and Role of Periosteum in Bone and Cartilage Regeneration

Abstract

This study was undertaken to determine whether periosteum from different bone sources in a donor results in the same formation of bone and cartilage. In this case, periosteum obtained from the cranium and mandible (examples of tissue supporting intramembranous ossification) and the radius and ilium (examples of tissues supporting endochondral ossification) of individual calves was used to produce tissue-engineered constructs that were implanted in nude mice and then retrieved after 10 and 20 weeks. Specimens were compared in terms of their osteogenic and chondrogenic potential by radiography, histology, and gene expression levels. By 10 weeks of implantation and more so by 20 weeks, constructs with cranial periosteum had developed to the greatest extent, followed in order by ilium, radius, and mandible periosteum. All constructs, particularly with cranial tissue although minimally with mandibular periosteum, had mineralized by 10 weeks on radiography and stained for proteoglycans with safranin-O red (cranial tissue most intensely and mandibular tissue least intensely). Gene expression of type I collagen, type II collagen, runx2, and bone sialoprotein (BSP) was detectable on QRT-PCR for all specimens at 10 and 20 weeks. By 20 weeks, the relative gene levels were: type I collagen, ilium >> radial ≧ cranial ≧ mandibular; type II collagen, radial > ilium > cranial ≧ mandibular; runx2, cranial >>> radial > mandibular ≧ ilium; and BSP, ilium ≧ radial > cranial > mandibular. These data demonstrate that the osteogenic and chondrogenic capacity of the various constructs is not identical and depends on the periosteal source regardless of intramembranous or endochondral ossification. Based on these results, cranial and mandibular periosteal tissues appear to enhance bone formation most and least prominently, respectively. The appropriate periosteal choice for bone and cartilage tissue engineering and regeneration should be a function of its immediate application as well as other factors besides growth rate.

Elucidating Multiscale Periosteal Mechanobiology: A Key to Unlocking the Smart Properties and Regenerative Capacity of the Periosteum?

“…Characterization of the the periosteum's material and mechanical properties will allow for a better understanding of the periosteum's role as the barrier membrane, 38,[51][52][53] PDCs are commonly used for bone and cartilage tissue engineering applications due to their ability to differentiate into tissues of mesodermal origin, specifically bone and cartilage. [16][17][18][19][54][55][56] Current methods for isolating PDCs from periosteum include enzymatic digestion or explant culture. 38 The choice of isolation protocol has not only practical, but also potentially important mechano-chemo-biological consequences; digestion liberates cells from the entire periosteum and exposes cells to collagenase (with unknown downstream effects) and explant culture favors the isolation of motile cells, which are capable of egressing from the cambium layer.…”

Autologous temporomandibular joint reconstruction independent of exogenous additives: a proof-of-concept study for guided self-generation

“…Periosteum and perichondrium are known to be essential for bone and cartilage generation in vivo 2829303132. Their cambium layer is rich in pluripotent cells which are able to differentiate into osteoprogenitor cells, chondroblasts, and osteoblasts.…”

Dissection in the subgaleal and subperiosteal plane: Implications on scalp wound healing

“…The clinical implication of vessel hypertrophy is unclear, although dilation facilitates and enriches nutrient supply. Disruption of the periosteum may limit its bone healing properties, and trauma to this layer may hinder the nurturing capacity to the underlying bone [16]. It is reasonable to hypothesise that, in these circumstances, exposed calvarium may depend more on dural contributions.…”