4.0 Article

In vivo tissue engineering of bone using poly(3-hydroxybutyric acid-co-3-hydroxyvaleric acid) and collagen scaffolds

Journal

TISSUE ENGINEERING
Volume 10, Issue 7-8, Pages 1234-1250

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.2004.10.1234

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Porous poly(3-hydroxybutyric acid-co-3-hydroxyvaleric acid) (PHBV) and calcium phosphate-loaded collagen (CaP-Gelfix) foams were seeded with rat bone marrow stromal cells and implanted into defects created in rat femurs to study in vivo bone formation and to test their suitability for use in bone tissue engineering. At 3 and 6 weeks, new bone formation was evaluated by macroscopy, radiography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), and quantitative computerized tomography (QCT). Atomic contents of the implants were further assessed by QCT. Some initial inflammation that significantly decreased with time was observed in the CaP-Gelfix group. PHBV inflammation was minimal at all stages. Fibrous tissue formation in the CaP-Gelfix group was more than in the PHBV group. Both cell-loaded and cell-free PHBV matrices elicited minimal fibrous tissue formation during the 6-week implantation duration. Macroscopic and radiological studies demonstrated better healing with PHBV matrices than with CaP-Gelfix in 3 weeks. Histologically, fibrous connective tissue establishment and inflammation scores were significantly higher in the CaP-Gelfix group when compared with the PHBV group at both time intervals. At 6 weeks, however, the extent of healing was almost the same with both implants. DEXA and QCT results indicated that there was an increase in bone mineral density in both PHBV and CaP-Gelfix implants at the end of 6 weeks. This study suggests that even though PHBV and CaP-Gelfix have different bulk and surface chemistries they both are promising cell carriers that may be suitable for use in bone tissue engineering.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available