Static and dynamic osteogenesis: two different types of bone formation

Abstract

The onset and development of intramembranous ossification centers in the cranial vault and around the shaft of long bones in five newborn rabbits and six chick embryos were studied by light (LM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Two subsequent different types of bone formation were observed. We respectively named them static and dynamic osteogenesis, because the former is characterized by pluristratified cords of unexpectedly stationary osteoblasts, which differentiate at a fairly constant distance (28+/-0.4 microm) from the blood capillaries, and the latter by the well-known typical monostratified laminae of movable osteoblasts. No significant structural and ultrastructural differences were found between stationary and movable osteoblasts, all being polarized secretory cells joined by gap junctions. However, unlike in typical movable osteoblastic laminae, stationary osteoblasts inside the cords are irregularly arranged, variously polarized and transform into osteocytes, clustered within confluent lacunae, in the same place where they differentiate. Static osteogenesis is devoted to the building of the first trabecular bony framework having, with respect to the subsequent bone apposition by typical movable osteoblasts, the same supporting function as calcified trabeculae in endochondral ossification. In conclusion, it appears that while static osteogenesis increases the bone external size, dynamic osteogenesis is mainly involved in bone compaction, i.e., in filling primary haversian spaces with primary osteons.

Does locally delivered Zoledronate influence peri-implant bone formation? – Spatio-temporal monitoring of bone remodeling in vivo

“…This zone was characterized by a large increase in bone formation rate during the first 17 days after the surgery up to a distance of 736 mm from the screw surface. This early peri-implant bone formation is in accordance with literature where it was shown to be the result of the so-called static osteogenesis [46,47]. Osteogenic cells and a new calcified matrix are therefore deposited after only a few days on the cement line created on the implant surface [48].…”

A preliminary study of the dental implant therapy—initial osteogenesis of Human Mesenchymal Stem (HMS0014) cells on titanium discs with different surface modifications—

“…Other studies have also demonstrated that regulation of vital reactions and consequent modeling and remodeling at the BIC interfaces might rapidly organize functional osseointegration to obtain a long-term stability of IPs for the occlusal rehabilitation therapy [8][9][10][11][12][13] . Previously, we have isolated and cultured mesenchyme cells (e.g., rat/human dental pulp cells, rat bone marrowderived stromal (BMS) cells, mouse KUSA/A (JCRB/ HSRRB; Osaka, Japan) cells), and elucidated that they were engineered to activate certain mechanisms to initiate hard tissue matrix deposition in both monolayer and 3-D cultures based on the guided bone regeneration (GBR) concept [14][15][16][17][18] .…”

A histological study of mineralised tissue formation around implants with 3D culture of HMS0014 cells in Cellmatrix Type I-A collagen gel scaffold <i>in vitro</i>

“…We have 3D-cultured JCRB1119:KUSA/A1 bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)s obtained from C3H/He mice (JCRB/HSRRB, Osaka, Japan) in a neutralised type I collagen gel (Cellmatrix Type I-A; Nitta Gelatin Inc., Osaka, Japan) with IPs, and observed hard tissue formation to mimic contact and the static osteogenesis in the GBR tissue surrounding titanium (Ti) IPs 2,9,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . Recently, we have investigated initial contact osteogenesis of HMS0014 MSCs (Yub621b, human bone-derived MSC line; Riken BRC, Tsukuba, Japan) on Ti discs (plates) subject to different surface modifications.…”