4.7 Article

3D anatomical and perfusion MRI for longitudinal evaluation of biomaterials for bone regeneration of femoral bone defect in rats

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-06258-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. French National Research Agency (ANR) [ANR-12-TECS-0011 TecSAN IneoV]
  2. institution of CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research)
  3. institution of Inserm (National Institute for Health and Medical Research)
  4. University of Bordeaux
  5. University of Paris 7
  6. University of Paris 13

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) appears as a good surrogate to Computed Tomography (CT) scan as it does not involve radiation. In this context, a 3D anatomical and perfusion MR imaging protocol was developed to follow the evolution of bone regeneration and the neo-vascularization in femoral bone defects in rats. For this, three different biomaterials based on Pullulan-Dextran and containing either Fucoidan or HydroxyApatite or both were implanted. In vivo MRI, ex vivo micro-CT and histology were performed 1, 3 and 5 weeks after implantation. The high spatially resolved (156 x 182 x 195 mu m) anatomical images showed a high contrast from the defects filled with biomaterials that decreased over time due to bone formation. The 3D Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE) imaging with high temporal resolution (1 image/19 s) enabled to detect a modification in the Area-Under-The-Gadolinium-Curve over the weeks post implantation. The high sensitivity of MRI enabled to distinguish which biomaterial was the least efficient for bone regeneration, which was confirmed by micro-CT images and by a lower vessel density observed by histology. In conclusion, the methodology developed here highlights the efficiency of longitudinal MRI for tissue engineering as a routine small animal exam.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available