3.8 Article

Bone Regeneration of Rat Calvarial Defect by Magnesium Calcium Phosphate Gelatin Scaffolds with or without Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAXILLOFACIAL & ORAL SURGERY
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 29-35

Publisher

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s12663-013-0478-7

Keywords

Bone regeneration; Magnesium calcium phosphate; Gelatin; In vivo; Bone morphogenetic protein-2; Rat; Calvarial defect; MCP-gelatin scaffold

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25670856] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regeneration of large bone losses has been achieved with limited success due to either donor site complications in autogenous bone graft or lack of an ideal biomaterial in the case of allografts. Magnesium calcium phosphate-gelatin sponges were prepared with different concentrations ofMCP; namely 0, 50 and 90 wt%. Eight mm defects were drilled in the calvaria of 48 male Fischer 344 rats. MCP-gelatin scaffolds containing or without bone morphogenetic protein were placed at the defect site. Animals were sacrificed at 3 and 12 weeks, post-operatively, with evaluation of bone regeneration by using micro CT and histological examinations. Results showed that the combination of BMP-2 and gelatin sponges could provide a slow release system that significantly enhanced bone regeneration at both 3 and 12 weeks in comparison with the non BMP2-containing 90 wt% MCP-gelatin sponges. The combination of 50 wt% MCP-gelatin sponges and BMP-2 showed significant bone formation at 3 weeks in comparison with the non BMP-2 containing gelatin sponges, indicating that the addition of MCP to the gelatin scaffold had a synergistic advantage in combination with BMP-2. This novel scaffold has shown adequate porosity to allow cell growth, amenability for sterilization, biocompatibility and biodegradability with the ability to provide a slow release system for BMP-2 to enhance bone regeneration.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available