4.6 Article

Combination of resveratrol-containing collagen with adipose stem cells for craniofacial tissue-engineering applications

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 660-672

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12910

Keywords

biocompatibility; bone regeneration; collagen; oral mucosal; resveratrol

Funding

  1. Defense Technology Cooperative Research [105-2623-E-016-004-D]
  2. Tri-Service General Hospital ROC program [TSGH-C103-037, TSGH-C97-109, TSGH-C99-129, TSGH-C104-098, TSGH-C106-074]
  3. Ministry National Defense-Medical Affairs Bureau [MAB-105-041]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Repair and regeneration of craniofacial tissues is particularly challenging because they comprise a complex structure of hard and soft tissues involved in intricate functions. This study combined collagen scaffolds and human adipose stem cells (hASCs) for oral mucosal and calvarial bone regeneration by using resveratrol (RSV), which affects the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. We have evaluated the effect of collagen scaffold-containing RSV (collagen/RSV) scaffolds both in vitro and in vivo for their wound healing and bone regeneration potential. Scanning electron microscopy and immunostaining results reveal that hASCs adhere well to and proliferate on both collagen scaffolds and collagen/RSV scaffolds. Oral mucosal lesion experiments demonstrated that the collagen/RSV scaffold is more effective in wound closure and contraction than the collagen scaffold. The micro-computed tomography (mu CT) images of calvarial bone display regenerating bone in defects covered with hASCs on collagen/RSV scaffolds that are more visible than that in defects covered with hASCs on a collagen scaffolds. RSV was more effective at inducing hASC differentiation on the collagen scaffold, suggesting that collagen/RSV scaffolds can provide useful biological cues that stimulate craniofacial tissue formation.

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