Cleft Palate Cells Can Regenerate a Palatal Mucosa in vitro

Abstract

Cleft palate repair leaves full-thickness mucosal defects on the palate. Healing might be improved by implantation of a mucosal substitute. However, the genetic and phenotypic deviations of cleft palate cells may hamper tissue engineering. The aim of this study was to construct mucosal substitutes from cleft palate cells, and to compare these with substitutes from normal palatal cells, and with native palatal mucosa. Biopsies from the palatal mucosa of eight children with cleft palate and eight age-matched control individuals were taken. Three biopsies of both groups were processed for (immuno)histochemistry; 5 were used to culture mucosal substitutes. Histology showed that the substitutes from cleft-palate and non-cleft-palate cells were comparable, but the number of cell layers was less than in native palatal mucosa. All epithelial layers in native palatal mucosa and mucosal substitutes expressed the cytokeratins 5, 10, and 16, and the proliferation marker Ki67. Heparan sulphate and decorin were present in the basal membrane and the underlying connective tissue, respectively. We conclude that mucosal cells from children with cleft palate can regenerate an oral mucosa in vitro.

The influence of elastin-like recombinant polymer on the self-renewing potential of a 3D tissue equivalent derived from human lamina propria fibroblasts and oral epithelial cells

“…The 3D tissue equivalent was reconstructed by the coculture of human lamina propria fibroblasts and oral epithelial cells in the nanofibrous ELR-collagen scaffold. Histological, immunohistological and transmission electron microscopic analyses of this oral mucosa equivalent demonstrated the expression of markers characteristic of epithelial proliferation (Ki67) and differentiation (keratin 13), and also the presence of a pluristratified epithelium and an ultrastructurally well-organized basement membrane expressing laminin 332. The synthesis of new extracellular matrix by the fibroblasts was also demonstrated.…”

Epithelial–Mesenchymal Interactions as a Working Concept for Oral Mucosa Regeneration

“…20 Other potential uses of tissue-engineered mucosa grafts are in vitro models to study the biology and pathology 21 and as a vehicle for delivery and expression of transduced genes. 20 In reconstructed oral mucosa, the morphology and protein expression pattern such as that of keratins are similar to that in the native oral mucosa, but the epithelium is typically thinner.…”

“…20 In reconstructed oral mucosa, the morphology and protein expression pattern such as that of keratins are similar to that in the native oral mucosa, but the epithelium is typically thinner. [21][22][23][24][25][26] In general, rete ridge formation is limited and the basement membrane is not fully developed. Cultured oral mucosa equivalents have been applied in patients following resection of mucosal tumor with some levels of short-term clinical success.…”

“…However, suboptimal cell ingrowth and migration have been observed using deepidermized dermis as a scaffold for skin and mucosal regeneration. 21 Natural derivatives are also used for intraoral resurfacing in gingival augmentation procedures, cleft palate repair, 82 or reconstructions after tumor resection. 83 Composite substrates are composed of two or more polymers, naturally derived and/or synthetic, are designed with a goal to combine the advantages of biodegradable and biocompatible properties of native and synthetic polymers ( Table 2).…”

Skin Tissue Surface Morphology and Quality of RNA and Protein Extracted from Fresh and Stabilized Human Cleft Lip and Palate Tissue

“…Orofacial clefts are the most common human congenital disorders that involve many genes and signaling pathways [1][2][3][4]. Cleft lip and palate (CLP) deformity has become a major public health problem affecting one in every 500 -1000 births worldwide [5].…”