Multipotential Stromal Cell Abundance in Cellular Bone Allograft: Comparison with Fresh Age-Matched Iliac Crest Bone and Bone Marrow Aspirate

Baboolal, Thomas G.; Boxall, Sally; El-Sherbiny, Yasser M.; Moseley, Timothy A.; Cuthbert, Richard; Giannoudis, Peter V.; McGonagle, Dennis; Jones, Elena

doi:10.2217/rme.14.17

Cited by 32 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…). Live cells were identified based on positive staining with live cell marker, Calcein violet and negative staining with Aqua dye, which only stains dead cells . The percentages of dead cells (Aqua positive cells after exclusion of debris) in relation to total released cells were similar in all three scaffolds (mean: 29%, 33%, and 30% for Orthoss ® collagen, Orthoss ® and Vitoss ® , respectively).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collagen‐containing scaffolds enhance attachment and proliferation of non‐cultured bone marrow multipotential stromal cells

El‐Jawhari

Sanjurjo‐Rodríguez

Jones

et al. 2015

Journal Orthopaedic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large bone defects are ideally treated with autografts, which have many limitations. Therefore, osteoconductive scaffolds loaded with autologous bone marrow (BM) aspirate are increasingly used as alternatives. The purpose of this study was to compare the growth of multipotential stromal cells (MSCs) from unprocessed BM on a collagen‐containing bovine bone scaffold (Orthoss® Collagen) with a non‐collagen‐containing bovine bone scaffold, Orthoss®. Another collagen‐containing synthetic scaffold, Vitoss® was included in the comparison. Colonization of scaffolds by BM MSCs (n = 23 donors) was evaluated using microscopy, colony forming unit‐fibroblast assay and flow‐cytometry. The number of BM MSCs initially attached to Orthoss® Collagen and Vitoss® was similar but greater than Orthoss® (p = 0.001 and p = 0.041, respectively). Furthermore, the number of MSCs released from Orthoss® Collagen and Vitoss® after 2‐week culture was also higher compared to Orthoss® (p = 0.010 and p = 0.023, respectively). Interestingly, collagen‐containing scaffolds accommodated larger numbers of lymphocytic and myelomonocytic cells. Additionally, the proliferation of culture‐expanded MSCs on Orthoss® collagen and Vitoss® was greater compared to Orthoss® (p = 0.047 and p = 0.004, respectively). Collectively, collagen‐containing scaffolds were superior in supporting the attachment and proliferation of MSCs when they were loaded with unprocessed BM aspirates. This highlights the benefit of collagen incorporation into bone scaffolds for use with autologous bone marrow aspirates as autograft substitutes. © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society. J Orthop Res 34:597–606, 2016.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collagen‐containing scaffolds enhance attachment and proliferation of non‐cultured bone marrow multipotential stromal cells

El‐Jawhari

Sanjurjo‐Rodríguez

Jones

et al. 2015

Journal Orthopaedic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present study cultured cells (GF/GMSC) demonstrated phenotype CD44+, CD106 +, CD29+, and CD34−. Based on the minimal criteria of International Society of Cellular Therapy (ISCT), human MSCs identified by adherence to plastic and expression of cell surface markers including the present study selected molecules CD29, CD44, and CD106 . Available evidence points to CD34 being expressed in tissue‐resident MSCs, and its negative finding being a consequence of cell culturing …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Regenerative potential of cultured gingival fibroblasts in treatment of periodontal intrabony defects (randomized clinical and biochemical trial)

Abdal‐Wahab

Abdel-Ghaffar

Ezzatt

et al. 2020

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Defective cellular elements constitute an important challenge to achieve predictable periodontal regeneration. In an attempt to improve the cellularity of periodontal defects, gingival fibroblasts were implanted without their associated extracellular elements in periodontal defects to expose them to periodontal tissue mediators. In order to investigate the regenerative potential of gingival fibroblasts translocated into periodontal defects, the present study was designed to clinically and biochemically investigate the use of gingival fibroblasts (GF) and their associated mesenchymal stem cells (GMSC) in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. Methods:A total of 20 subjects were randomly divided into two groups (n = 20).Group I: ten patients were included with ten intrabony periodontal defects that received β-calcium triphosphate (β-TCP) followed by collagen membrane defect coverage, while group II: (10 patients) ten periodontal defects received cultured gingival fibroblasts (GF) on the β-TCP scaffold and covered by a collagen membrane. The clinical evaluation was carried out at the beginning and at 6 months. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected directly from the test sites for the quantitative measurement of PDGF-BB and BMP-2 using the ELISA kit at 1, 7, 14, and 21 days after surgery.

show abstract

“…Osteocel ® is obtained from cadaveric cancellous bone of screened donors following selective cell preservation. Previous studies have identified MSC‐like cells in Osteocel ® at a higher frequency than those found in freshly isolated iliac bone or BMA (Baboolal et al., ; Skovrlj et al., ). In one RCT, significantly greater NBF was observed following SA with Osteocel ® compared to cell‐free allograft (Gonshor et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In one RCT, significantly greater NBF was observed following SA with Osteocel ® compared to cell‐free allograft (Gonshor et al., ). Nevertheless, the need for further studies to investigate the mechanism of action of osteoprogenitors in cellular allografts, that is whether these cells participate directly in NBF via differentiation or whether they act as immunoregulators of host MSCs, has been highlighted (Baboolal et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell therapy for orofacial bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Shanbhag

Suliman

Pandis

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The objective of the present review was to answer the focused question: what is the effect of cell therapy in terms of orofacial bone regeneration compared to grafting with only biomaterial scaffolds and/or autogenous bone? Methods Electronic databases were searched for relevant controlled clinical and pre‐clinical (large‐animal) studies. Separate meta‐analyses of quantitative data regarding histological or radiographic new bone formation were performed. Results Forty‐seven eligible clinical and 57 pre‐clinical studies were included. Clinical studies were categorized based on the use of “minimally manipulated” whole tissues (e.g., bone marrow) or ex vivo expanded cells from “uncommitted” (bone marrow, adipose tissue) or “committed” sources (periosteum, bone). Based on limited and heterogeneous clinical evidence, implantation of cells (mostly whole bone marrow), in combination with biomaterial scaffolds results in bone regeneration which is (a) superior compared to implantation of scaffolds alone in sinus and horizontal ridge augmentation, and (b) comparable to autogenous bone in alveolar cleft repair. Conclusions Although current evidence points to the benefits of cell therapy in certain clinical indications, it is unclear whether the use of ex vivo expanded cells, either uncommitted or committed, is superior to whole tissue fractions in terms of bone regeneration. The relatively larger effect sizes in favour of cell therapy observed in pre‐clinical studies are diminished in clinical trials. Future controlled studies should include cost‐effectiveness analyses to guide clinical decision‐making.

show abstract

Multipotential Stromal Cell Abundance in Cellular Bone Allograft: Comparison with Fresh Age-Matched Iliac Crest Bone and Bone Marrow Aspirate

Abstract: Cellular allograft bone represents a unique nonimmune material rich in MSCs and osteocytes. This osteoinductive graft represents an attractive alternative to autograft bone or composite/synthetic grafts in orthopedics and broader regenerative medicine settings.

Cited by 32 publications

References 72 publications

Collagen‐containing scaffolds enhance attachment and proliferation of non‐cultured bone marrow multipotential stromal cells

Collagen‐containing scaffolds enhance attachment and proliferation of non‐cultured bone marrow multipotential stromal cells

Regenerative potential of cultured gingival fibroblasts in treatment of periodontal intrabony defects (randomized clinical and biochemical trial)

Cell therapy for orofacial bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About