4.4 Article

Construction and characterization of a tissue-engineered oral mucosa equivalent based on a chitosan-fish scale collagen composite

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.32746

Keywords

tissue engineering; scaffold; chitosan; tilapia scale collagen; oral keratinocyte

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to (1) assess the in vitro biocompatibility of a chitosancollagen composite scaffold (C3) constructed by blending commercial chitosan and tilapia scale collagen with oral mucosa keratinocytes, (2) histologically and immunohistochemically characterize an ex vivo-produced oral mucosa equivalent constructed using the C3 (EVPOME-C), and (3) compare EVPOME-C with oral mucosa constructs utilizing AlloDerm (R) (EVPOME-A), BioMend (R) Extend (TM) (EVPOME-B), and native oral mucosa. C3 scaffold had a well-developed fibril network and a sufficiently small porosity to prevent keratinocytes from growing inside the scaffold after cell-seeding. The EVPOME oral mucosa constructs were fabricated in a chemically defined culture system. After culture at an air-liquid interface, EVPOME-C and EVPOME-B had multilayered epithelium with keratinization, while EVPOME-A had a more organized stratified epithelium. Ki-67 and p63 immunolabeled cells in the basal layer of all EVPOMEs suggested a regenerative ability. Compared with native oral mucosa, the keratin 15 and 10/13 expression patterns in all EVPOMEs showed a less-organized differentiation pattern. In contrast to the beta 1-integrin and laminin distribution in EVPOME-A and native oral mucosa, the subcellular deposition in EVPOME-C and EVPOME-B indicated that complete basement membrane formation failed. These findings demonstrated that C3 has a potential application for epithelial tissue engineering and provides a new potential therapeutic device for oral mucosa regenerative medicine. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2012.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available