The brain tissue response to biodegradable poly(methylidene malonate 2.1.2)-based microspheres in the rat

Fournier, E; Passirani, Catherine; Colin, Nathalie; Sagodira, Serge; Meneï, Philippe; Benoit, Jean‐Pierre; Montero‐Menei, Claudia N.

doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.04.045

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reaction was almost 3 times less intensive than the reaction of muscular tissue to the implantation of sutures that we reported earlier (Shishatskaya et al, 2004a). This result is in good agreement with the data reported by Fournier et al (Fournier et al, 2006), who found that the intramuscularly injected microspheres cluster was isolated from the muscular tissue by a very thin fibrous capsule, which was much less At 5 weeks, the number of mono-and polynuclear macrophages at the site of implantation of the microspheres increased (Fig. 4a).…”

Section: In Vivo Reactionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biocompatibility of polyhydroxybutyrate microspheres: in vitro and in vivo evaluation

Shishatskaya

Voinova

Goreva

et al. 2008

J Mater Sci: Mater Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microspheres have been prepared from the resorbable linear polyester of β-hydroxybutyric acid (polyhydroxybutyrate, PHB) by the solvent evaporation technique and investigated in vitro and in vivo. Biocompatibility of the microspheres has been proved in tests in the culture of mouse fibroblast cell line NIH 3Т3 and in experiments on intramuscular implantation of the microspheres to Wistar rats for 3 months. Tissue response to the implantation of polymeric microspheres has been found to consist in a mild inflammatory reaction, pronounced macrophage infiltration that increases over time, involving mono-and poly-nuclear foreign body giant cells that resorb the polymeric matrix. No fibrous capsules

show abstract

Section: In Vivo Reactionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The reason for this is that macrophages and foreign body giant cells phagocytize and resorb biodegradable materials. (Kang and Singh, 2005), and poly(methylidene malonate 2.1.2 (Fournier, et al, 2006).…”

Section: In Vivo Reactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility of polyhydroxybutyrate microspheres: in vitro and in vivo evaluation

Shishatskaya

Voinova

Goreva

et al. 2008

J Mater Sci: Mater Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scaffolds should be able to degrade with time, with degradation products that may also be eliminated by the host, allowing a full integration of transplanted cells into the brain. This criteria was not observed for synthetic poly(methylidene malonate 2.1.2) microspheres implanted into rat brains even if biocompatibility of the intact microspheres was satisfactory (Fournier et al, 2006). It is interesting to note that size of particles may also affect the extent of the host response.…”

Section: Combined Use Of Adult Stem Cells and Scaffolds For Cell Delimentioning

confidence: 98%

Tissue Engineering for Tissue and Organ Regeneration

Eberli¹

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This means that when determining the biocompatibility of polymers, implanted cells, or devices for use in the brain, the neuroimmune response must be determined—not necessarily the peripheral immune response alone. For example, poly(methylidene malonate 2.1.2) microspheres were found to be biocompatible when injected intravenously but when implanted into the brain, the microspheres initiated a massive immune response resulting in the death of some the test subjects [1,2]. Under certain conditions, peripheral immune cells do pass from the periphery into the brain, such as during occasions of brain damage or in some diseases which can weaken the blood-brain barrier.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Biocompatible Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering of the Brain and Spinal Cord

Aurand

Wagner

Lanning

et al. 2012

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tissue engineering strategies employing biomaterials have made great progress in the last few decades. However, the tissues of the brain and spinal cord pose unique challenges due to a separate immune system and their nature as soft tissue. Because of this, neural tissue engineering for the brain and spinal cord may require re-establishing biocompatibility and functionality of biomaterials that have previously been successful for tissue engineering in the body. The goal of this review is to briefly describe the distinctive properties of the central nervous system, specifically the neuroimmune response, and to describe the factors which contribute to building polymer hydrogels compatible with this tissue. These factors include polymer chemistry, polymerization and degradation, and the physical and mechanical properties of the hydrogel. By understanding the necessities in making hydrogels biocompatible with tissue of the brain and spinal cord, tissue engineers can then functionalize these materials for repairing and replacing tissue in the central nervous system.

show abstract

The brain tissue response to biodegradable poly(methylidene malonate 2.1.2)-based microspheres in the rat

Cited by 22 publications

References 38 publications

Biocompatibility of polyhydroxybutyrate microspheres: in vitro and in vivo evaluation

Biocompatibility of polyhydroxybutyrate microspheres: in vitro and in vivo evaluation

Tissue Engineering for Tissue and Organ Regeneration

Building Biocompatible Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering of the Brain and Spinal Cord

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About