4.8 Article

Performance of collagen sponge as a 3-D scaffold for tooth-tissue engineering

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 27, Issue 17, Pages 3238-3248

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.055

Keywords

collagen sponge; odontogenesis; polyglycolic acid; scaffold; tissue engineering; teeth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tooth structure can be regenerated by seeding dissociated tooth cells onto polyglycolic acid fiber mesh, although the success rate of tooth production is low. The present Study was designed to compare the performance of collagen sponge with polyglycolic acid fiber mesh as a 3-D scaffold for tooth-tissue engineering. Porcine third molar teeth at the early stage of crown formation were enzymatically dissociated into single cells, and the heterogeneous cells were seeded onto collagen sponge or the polyglycolic acid fiber mesh scaffolds. Scaffolds were then Cultured to evaluate cell adhesion and ALP activity in vitro. An in vivo analysis was performed by implanting the constructs into the omentum of immunocompromised rats and evaluating tooth production up to 25 weeks. After 24h, there were a significantly higher number of cells attached to the collagen sponge scaffold than the polyglycolic acid fiber mesh scaffold. Similarly, the ALP activity was significantly higher for the collagen sponge scaffold was than the polyglycolic acid fiber mesh scaffold after 7 days of Culture. The area of calcified tissue formed in the collagen sponge scaffold was also larger than in the polyglycolic acid fiber mesh scaffold. The results from in vivo experiments show conclusively that a collagen sponge scaffold allows tooth production with a higher degree of success than polyglycolic acid fiber mesh. Taken together, the results from this Study show that collagen sponge scaffold is Superior to the polyglycolic acid fiber mesh scaffold for tooth-tissue engineering. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available