Healing of Bone Defects in Pig’s Femur Using Mesenchymal Cells Originated from the Sinus Membrane with Different Scaffolds

Abstract

Objective Repairing bone defects, especially in older individuals with limited regenerative capacity, is still a big challenge. The use of biomimetic materials that can enhance the restoration of bone structure represents a promising clinical approach. In this study, we evaluated ectopic bone formation after the transplantation of human maxillary Schneiderian sinus membrane- (hMSSM-) derived cells embedded within various scaffolds in the femur of pigs. Methods The scaffolds used were collagen, gelatin, and hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate (HA/βTCP) where fibrin/thrombin was used as a control. Histological analysis was performed for the new bone formation. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) were used to assess mRNA and protein levels of specific osteoblastic markers, respectively. Results Histological analysis showed that the three scaffolds we used can support new bone formation with a more pronounced effect observed in the case of the gelatin scaffold. In addition, mRNA levels of the different tested osteoblastic markers Runt-Related Transcription Factor 2 (RUNX-2), osteonectin (ON), osteocalcin (OCN), osteopontin (OPN), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and type 1 collagen (COL1) were higher, after 2 and 4 weeks, in cell-embedded scaffolds than in control cells seeded within the fibrin/thrombin scaffold. Moreover, there was a very clear and differential expression of RUNX-2, OCN, and vimentin in osteocytes, osteoblasts, hMSSM-derived cells, and bone matrix. Interestingly, the osteogenic markers were more abundant, at both time points, in cell-embedded gelatin scaffold than in other scaffolds (collagen, HA/βTCP, fibrin/thrombin). Conclusions These results hold promise for the development of successful bone regeneration techniques using different scaffolds embedded with hMSSM-derived cells. This trial is registered with NCT02676921.

Effects of platelet-rich fibrin on osteogenic differentiation of Schneiderian membrane derived mesenchymal stem cells and bone formation in maxillary sinus

“…Nowadays, MSFE has been considered as the most effective procedure for bone augmentation in the posterior maxilla. Osteogenic potential of SM-MSCs was confirmed, involving in the new bone formation during the MSFE procedure [ 22 ]. Many growth factors, such as BMP-2, PDGF, TGF-β and insulin like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), were considered as the potent regulators of bone formation [ 23 ].…”

Performance of 3D printed porous polyetheretherketone composite scaffolds combined with nano-hydroxyapatite/carbon fiber in bone tissue engineering: a biological evaluation

“…The expression of the ALP gene reached its highest level on day 14, and the expression decreased on day 21 ( Figure 7B ). Col-1 is a protein that predominantly promotes osteoblast adhesion and differentiation, facilitating bone repair ( Bou Assaf et al, 2019 ). At day 21, the cellular expression of the P-10H10C, P-20H10C, and P-30H10C scaffolds was higher than that of P, which might be attributed to the inclusion of nHA, which roughened the surface of the scaffolds ( Figure 7C ).…”

Magnesium surface-activated 3D printed porous PEEK scaffolds for in vivo osseointegration by promoting angiogenesis and osteogenesis

“…RUNX2 and Osterix are specific transcription factors that regulate osteoblast matrix protein expression and are essential for osteogenic differentiation and bone formation [ 49 ]. COL1 is an important component of the bone matrix produced by osteoblasts and OPN is a more abundant noncollagenous protein in the bone matrix, both of which are important for osteoblast adhesion, differentiation and bone matrix formation [ 50 ]. In addition, no difference was found in the expression of the Bmp2 and Ocn genes between groups, likely because Mg 2+ and PDA surface modification did not cause activation of BMP2, whereas OCN proteins tend to appear at the end of osteogenic differentiation [ 51 ] and therefore did not show differences in early gene expression.…”