Bone Block Allograft Impregnated With Bone Marrow Aspirate

Soltan, Muna; Smiler, Dennis; Prasad, Hari; Rohrer, Michael D.

doi:10.1097/id.0b013e31815c8ef4

Cited by 34 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…), bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) were the first described MSCs and remain among the most reliable and relevant sources of MSCs for skeletal regeneration (Friedenstein, Gorskaja, & Kulagina, 1976; Gronthos et al, 2003; Knight & Hankenson, 2013). For years, the iliac crest or long bones such as the tibia and femur have been most commonly utilized to obtain BMSCs for craniofacial regeneration (Cerruti et al, 2007; Kaigler et al, 2013; Kawaguchi et al, 2004; Li, Yan, Lei, Li, & Xiao, 2009; Marei, Nouh, Saad, & Ismail, 2005; Soltan, Smiler, Prasad, & Rohrer, 2007; Xie et al, 2010), but it remains uncertain whether BMSCs from craniofacial bones are more potent for this purpose. Several recent studies isolated BMSCs from the maxilla and mandible by rinsing bone fragments or by flushing cells through the extraction sockets, and compared their properties with those from long bones or iliac crest so far (Aghaloo et al, 2010; Akintoye et al, 2006; Dong et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarities and differences between porcine mandibular and limb bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells

Lloyd

Tee

Headley

et al. 2017

Archives of Oral Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Research has shown promise of using bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) for craniofacial bone regeneration; yet little is known about the differences of BMSCs from limb and craniofacial bones. This study compared pig mandibular and tibia BMSCs for their in vitro proliferation, osteogenic differentiation properties and gene expression. Design Bone marrow was aspirated from the tibia and mandible of 3–4 month-old pigs (n=4), followed by BMSC isolation, culture-expansion and characterization by flow cytometry. Proliferation rates were assessed using population doubling times. Osteogenic differentiation was evaluated by alkaline phosphatase activity. Affymetrix porcine microarray was used to compare gene expressions of tibial and mandibular BMSCs, followed by real-time RT-PCR evaluation of certain genes. Results Our results showed that BMSCs from both locations expressed MSC markers but not hematopoietic markers. The proliferation and osteogenic differentiation potential of mandibular BMSCs were significantly stronger than those of tibial BMSCs. Microarray analysis identified 404 highly abundant genes, out of which 334 genes were matched between the two locations and annotated into the same functional groups including osteogenesis and angiogenesis, while 70 genes were mismatched and annotated into different functional groups. In addition, 48 genes were differentially expressed by at least 1.5-fold difference between the two locations, including higher expression of cranial neural crest-related gene BMP-4 in mandibular BMSCs, which was confirmed by real-time RT-PCR. Conclusions Altogether, these data indicate that despite strong similarities in gene expression between mandibular and tibial BMSCs, mandibular BMSCs express some genes differently than tibial BMSCs and have a phenotypic profile that may make them advantageous for craniofacial bone regeneration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarities and differences between porcine mandibular and limb bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells

Lloyd

Tee

Headley

et al. 2017

Archives of Oral Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The application of non-absorbable barrier membranes had no significant effect on new bone formation. It has been reported that successful bone augmentation can be achieved using CHBB impregnated with bone marrow aspirate 19 . From these results, it is conceivable that CHBB with excellent activity of new bone formation and space maintenance in conjunction with collagen (which maintains and controls the release of rhBMP-2) can lead to a better outcome in wide vertical ridge augmentation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of bone block graft with rhBMP-2 on vertical bone augmentation

Kim

Shin

2010

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…10 However, we must consider that when autogenous bone graft is used, bone resorption must be expected with no predictable percent bone loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distraction Osteogenesis of Iliac Bone Graft as a Reconstruction After Central Giant Cell Granuloma Curettage

Moraes

Sato²,

Germano³

et al. 2009

Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone Block Allograft Impregnated With Bone Marrow Aspirate

Abstract: Impregnation of bone-marrow aspirate into allograft bone block activates the body's ability to form new bone. The bone-marrow aspiration technique is less invasive than harvesting autogenous bone from a second surgical site, offers predictable results, and is cost effective.

Cited by 34 publications

References 49 publications

Similarities and differences between porcine mandibular and limb bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells

Similarities and differences between porcine mandibular and limb bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells

Effect of bone block graft with rhBMP-2 on vertical bone augmentation

Distraction Osteogenesis of Iliac Bone Graft as a Reconstruction After Central Giant Cell Granuloma Curettage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About