Comparative study of the osteogenic ability of four different ceramic constructs in an ectopic large animal model

Abstract

Tissue-engineered constructs combining bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with biodegradable osteoconductive scaffolds are very promising for repairing large segmental bone defects. Synchronizing and controlling the balance between scaffold-material resorption and new bone tissue formation are crucial aspects for the success of bone tissue engineering. The purpose of the present study was to determine, and compare, the osteogenic potential of ceramic scaffolds with different resorbability. Four clinically relevant granular biomaterial scaffolds (specifically, Porites coral, Acropora coral, beta-tricalcium phosphate and banked bone) with or without autologous bone marrow stromal cells were implanted in the ectopic, subcutaneous-pouch sheep model. Scaffold material resorption and new bone formation were assessed eight weeks after implantation. New bone formation was only detected when the biomaterial constructs tested contained MSCs. New bone formation was higher in the Porites coral and Acropora coral than in either the beta-tricalcium phosphate or the banked bone constructs; furthermore, there was a direct correlation between scaffold resorption and bone formation. The results of the present study provide evidence that, among the biomaterials tested, coral scaffolds containing MSCs promoted the best new bone formation in the present study.

Induced membrane for treatment of critical sized bone defect: a review of experimental and clinical experiences

“…Because of its alleged potential as a healing protector, the induced membrane has been used as an envelope to protect and help the use of bioengineered products aimed at bone healing. So far, to the best of our knowledge, that involves experimental studies on animals in heterotopic or orthotopic localizations [12,36,37].…”

A comparative study of tissue-engineered constructs from Acropora and Porites coral in a large animal bone defect model

“…These results are in accordance with previous studies in sheep, in which cell-free or MSC-seeded scaffolds were implanted in small bone defects 19 or subcutaneously. 20 Thus, it seems that the resorption profile of coral-based TECs is not different depending on the site of implantation. Although further studies are mandatory to investigate this issue, studies related to the coral resorption profile may be conducted in cheaper and easier, less invasive models than the orthotopic model.…”

Synthetic and Marine-Derived Porous Bone Graft Substitutes

“…Moreover, the osteogenic potential of these two coral species (Acropora and Porites) was compared with -TCP scaffolds and banked bone in the presence or absence of MSCs. Bone formation was only registered in the samples containing MSCs and the coral scaffolds demonstrated to have the best bone formation capability [142].…”