Modeling of the human mandibular periosteum material properties and comparison with the calvarial periosteum

Kadlub, Natacha; Debelmas, Alexandre; Dallard, J.; Picard, A.; Boisson, Jean

doi:10.1007/s10237-019-01221-6

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ultimate strength of pericranium in this study (9.41 (C) to 9.76 (L) MPa) was higher than that reported for periosteum in the nasal region (3.66–4.04 MPa) [ 60 ]. Similarly, the tangent modulus of pericranium in this study (62.0 (C)–69.2 (L) MPa) was greater than that of mandibular periosteum (8.0–16.4 MPa) [ 61 ], which may be due to the different region of harvest, as well as different testing protocols.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Tensile properties of human spinal dura mater and pericranium

Cavelier

Quarrington

Jones

2022

J Mater Sci: Mater Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autologous pericranium is a promising dural graft material. An optimal graft should exhibit similar mechanical properties to the native dura, but the mechanical properties of human pericranium have not been characterized, and studies of the biomechanical performance of human spinal dura are limited. The primary aim of this study was to measure the tensile structural and material properties of the pericranium, in the longitudinal and circumferential directions, and of the dura in each spinal region (cervical, thoracic and lumbar) and in three directions (longitudinal anterior and posterior, and circumferential). The secondary aim was to determine corresponding constitutive stress–strain equations using a one-term Ogden model. A total of 146 specimens were tested from 7 cadavers. Linear regression models assessed the effect of tissue type, region, and orientation on the structural and material properties. Pericranium was isotropic, while spinal dura was anisotropic with higher stiffness and strength in the longitudinal than the circumferential direction. Pericranium had lower strength and modulus than spinal dura across all regions in the longitudinal direction but was stronger and stiffer than dura in the circumferential direction. Spinal dura and pericranium had similar strain at peak force, toe, and yield, across all regions and directions. Human pericranium exhibits isotropic mechanical behavior that lies between that of the longitudinal and circumferential spinal dura. Further studies are required to determine if pericranium grafts behave like native dura under in vivo loading conditions. The Ogden parameters reported may be used for computational modeling of the central nervous system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Tensile properties of human spinal dura mater and pericranium

Cavelier

Quarrington

Jones

2022

J Mater Sci: Mater Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 The inner layer contains osteoblasts and mesenchymal stem cells which are responsible for osteogenesis. 5 Placing the inner layer over the dura creates a potential space for bone growth sandwiched between 2 osteoblast-containing membranes, rather than layered on top of only one such membrane (the dura) when a pericranial flap is not used. Theoretically, using a pericranial flap should allow for more bone growth than when a pericranial flap is not used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It contains both an inner and an outer layer. The outer layer contains fibroblasts, collagen, and elastin for strength 5 . The inner layer contains osteoblasts and mesenchymal stem cells which are responsible for osteogenesis 5 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outer layer contains fibroblasts, collagen, and elastin for strength 5 . The inner layer contains osteoblasts and mesenchymal stem cells which are responsible for osteogenesis 5 . Placing the inner layer over the dura creates a potential space for bone growth sandwiched between 2 osteoblast-containing membranes, rather than layered on top of only one such membrane (the dura) when a pericranial flap is not used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vascularized Pericranial Flap as a Method to Prevent Persistent Skull Defects After Craniectomy for Sagittal Synostosis

Flores

French

Alexander

et al. 2021

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some cranial defects resulting from sagittal craniectomy for craniosynostosis never completely close and require cranioplasty. This study evaluates the results of 2 methods to minimize such defects: (1) trapezoidal craniectomy that is narrower posteriorly (2) vascularized pericranial flap that is sewn to the dura under a rectangular craniectomy.Children who underwent primary open sagittal craniectomy with biparietal morcellation (with/without frontal cranioplasty) for singlesuture nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis from 2013 through 2018 were included. Children were excluded if there was a dural tear, if they had no 1-year follow-up, or if they had unmeasured and/or uncounted skull defects. Surgeries were divided into (1) standard craniectomy, (2) trapezoidal craniectomy, or (3) craniectomy with pericranial flap. Differences in percentage of children with defects and mean total defect area 1 year postsurgery were compared between the 3 groups.We reviewed 148 cases. After exclusions, 34 of 53 children (64%) who underwent standard craniectomy, 6 of 17 children (35%) who had pericranial flaps, and 5 of 11 children (46%) who underwent trapezoidal craniectomy had defects 1 year postsurgery. The percentage of children with defects (P ¼ 0.0364) but not the defect area was significantly higher in the standard craniectomy than in the pericranial flap group. The percentage of subjects with defects was not significantly different between the standard and the trapezoidal craniectomy groups.Sewing a vascularized pericranial flap to the dura at the craniectomy site may protect against persistent bony defects after sagittal craniectomy for craniosynostosis. Longer follow-up is needed to determine if this technique leads to lower rates of cranioplasty.

show abstract

“…22 The proven regenerative power of the periosteum has led to its use in the management of maxillofacial defects of relatively small size. 23–26 Bone engineering techniques may use a combination of cells (especially mesenchymal stem cells—MSCs), scaffolds and growth factors to manage larger defects. Although several sources of stem cells are known (embryonic; ESCs, Umbilical cord cells; UCSCs, Adult somatic; iPSCs and adult tissue cells) BM-MSCs and ADSCs remain the major sources of stem cells.…”

Section: Craniofacial Bone Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent update on craniofacial tissue engineering

Emara

Shah²

2021

J Tissue Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The craniofacial region consists of several different tissue types. These tissues are quite commonly affected by traumatic/pathologic tissue loss which has so far been traditionally treated by grafting procedures. With the complications and drawbacks of grafting procedures, the emerging field of regenerative medicine has proved potential. Tissue engineering advancements and the application in the craniofacial region is quickly gaining momentum although most research is still at early in vitro/in vivo stages. We aim to provide an overview on where research stands now in tissue engineering of craniofacial tissue; namely bone, cartilage muscle, skin, periodontal ligament, and mucosa. Abstracts and full-text English articles discussing techniques used for tissue engineering/regeneration of these tissue types were summarized in this article. The future perspectives and how current technological advancements and different material applications are enhancing tissue engineering procedures are also highlighted. Clinically, patients with craniofacial defects need hybrid reconstruction techniques to overcome the complexity of these defects. Cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency are also required in such defects. The results of the studies covered in this review confirm the potential of craniofacial tissue engineering strategies as an alternative to avoid the problems of currently employed techniques. Furthermore, 3D printing advances may allow for fabrication of patient-specific tissue engineered constructs which should improve post-operative esthetic results of reconstruction. There are on the other hand still many challenges that clearly require further research in order to catch up with engineering of other parts of the human body.

show abstract

Modeling of the human mandibular periosteum material properties and comparison with the calvarial periosteum

Cited by 9 publications

References 26 publications

Tensile properties of human spinal dura mater and pericranium

Tensile properties of human spinal dura mater and pericranium

Vascularized Pericranial Flap as a Method to Prevent Persistent Skull Defects After Craniectomy for Sagittal Synostosis

Recent update on craniofacial tissue engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About