4.6 Article

Magnetic Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitutes to Enhance Tissue Regeneration: Evaluation In Vitro Using Osteoblast-Like Cells and In Vivo in a Bone Defect

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038710

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Union project MAGISTER [NMP3-LA-2008-214685]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In case of degenerative disease or lesion, bone tissue replacement and regeneration is an important clinical goal. In particular, nowadays, critical size defects rely on the engineering of scaffolds that are 3D structural supports, allowing cellular infiltration and subsequent integration with the native tissue. Several ceramic hydroxyapatite (HA) scaffolds with high porosity and good osteointegration have been developed in the past few decades but they have not solved completely the problems related to bone defects. In the present study we have developed a novel porous ceramic composite made of HA that incorporates magnetite at three different ratios: HA/Mgn 95/5, HA/Mgn 90/10 and HA/Mgn 50/50. The scaffolds, consolidated by sintering at high temperature in a controlled atmosphere, have been analysed in vitro using human osteoblast-like cells. Results indicate high biocompatibility, similar to a commercially available HA bone graft, with no negative effects arising from the presence of magnetite or by the use of a static magnetic field. HA/Mgn 90/10 was shown to enhance cell proliferation at the early stage. Moreover, it has been implanted in vivo in a critical size lesion of the rabbit condyle and a good level of histocompatibility was observed. Such results identify this scaffold as particularly relevant for bone tissue regeneration and open new perspectives for the application of a magnetic field in a clinical setting of bone replacement, either for magnetic scaffold fixation or magnetic drug delivery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available