Biological and biophysical principles in extracorporal bone tissue engineering

Wiesmann, Hans Peter; Joos, Ulrich; Meyer, Ulrich

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2004.04.005

Cited by 80 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of interest is the fact that some of these proteins can be regulated through physical stimulation. Cultured cells and tissues subjected to different biophysical stimuli of varying intensities in both in vitro and in vivo settings have been reviewed (Chao & Inoue, 2003;Wiesmann et al, 2004). These stimuli include mechanical force, electrical and electromagnetic field, laser irradiation, heat shock, and ultrasound.…”

Section: Growth Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrical Stimulation in Tissue Regeneration

Meng¹,

Rouabhia²,

Zhang³

2011

Applied Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Growth Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrical Stimulation in Tissue Regeneration

Meng¹,

Rouabhia²,

Zhang³

2011

Applied Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The scaffold itself should encourage cell attachment and proliferation, be of a suitable stiffness for the required tissue and have porosity and pore interconnectivity, which allow the flow of nutrients and waste through the scaffold. [44][45][46][47] The stiffness, porosity and interconnectivity also affect the transmission of mechanical stimulation to the cells. For an open porous structure, fluid flow can pass through the scaffold and cause shear stress on the cells.…”

Section: Choice Of Scaffolding Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preclinical models for in vitro mechanical loading of bone-derived cells

Delaine-Smith¹,

Javaheri²,

Edwards³

et al. 2015

BoneKEy Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that bone responds to mechanical stimuli whereby physical forces are translated into chemical signals between cells, via mechanotransduction. It is difficult however to study the precise cellular and molecular responses using in vivo systems. In vitro loading models, which aim to replicate forces found within the bone microenvironment, make the underlying processes of mechanotransduction accessible to the researcher. Direct measurements in vivo and predictive modeling have been used to define these forces in normal physiological and pathological states. The types of mechanical stimuli present in the bone include vibration, fluid shear, substrate deformation and compressive loading, which can all be applied in vitro to monolayer and three-dimensional (3D) cultures. In monolayer, vibration can be readily applied to cultures via a low-magnitude, high-frequency loading rig. Fluid shear can be applied to cultures in multiwell plates via a simple rocking platform to engender gravitational fluid movement or via a pump to cells attached to a slide within a parallel-plate flow chamber, which may be micropatterned for use with osteocytes. Substrate strain can be applied via the vacuum-driven FlexCell system or via a four-point loading jig. 3D cultures better replicate the bone microenvironment and can also be subjected to the same forms of mechanical stimuli as monolayer, including vibration, fluid shear via perfusion flow, strain or compression. 3D cocultures that more closely replicate the bone microenvironment can be used to study the collective response of several cell types to loading. This technical review summarizes the methods for applying mechanical stimuli to bone cells in vitro.

show abstract

“…Porous materials allow improved interdigitation with host bone, improved vascularization and fluid exchange. Several studies have suggested that the optimum pore size for neovascularization and bone ingrowth is between 200 m and 500 m (Green et al, 2002;Wiesmann et al, 2004) and that good connectivity of the pores throughout the scaffold is essential (Shors, 1999). This advancement in design, coupled with the principles of biomimetics and an interest in ex vivo tissue engineering of bone has led to a search for naturally occurring scaffolds that could be used for the purpose of bone regeneration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designs from the deep: Marine organisms for bone tissue engineering

Clarke

Walsh

Maggs

et al. 2011

Biotechnology Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current strategies for bone repair have accepted limitations and the search for synthetic graft materials or for scaffolds that will support ex vivo bone tissue engineering continues. Biomimetic strategies have led to the investigation of naturally occurring porous structures as templates for bone growth. The marine environment is rich in mineralizing organisms with porous structures, some of which are currently being used as bone graft materials and others that are in early stages of development. This review describes the current evidence available for these organisms, considers the relative promise of each and suggests potential future directions.

show abstract

Biological and biophysical principles in extracorporal bone tissue engineering

Cited by 80 publications

References 94 publications

Electrical Stimulation in Tissue Regeneration

Electrical Stimulation in Tissue Regeneration

Preclinical models for in vitro mechanical loading of bone-derived cells

Designs from the deep: Marine organisms for bone tissue engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About