4.7 Article

Bone regeneration via a mineral substrate and induced angiogenesis

Journal

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 83, Issue 3, Pages 204-210

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/154405910408300304

Keywords

tissue engineering; VEGF; hydroxyapatite; poly(lactide-co-glycolide); drug delivery

Funding

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE 13033] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM 08353, T32 GM145304] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Angiogenesis and biomineral substrates play major roles in bone development and regeneration We hypothesized that macroporous scaffolds of biomineralized 85:15 poly(lactide-co-glycolide), which locally release vascular endothelial growth factor-165 (VEGF), would direct simultaneous regeneration of bone and vascular tissue. The presence of a bone-like biomineral substrate significantly increased regeneration of osteoid matrix (32 +/- 7% of total tissue area; mean +/- SD; p < 0.05) and mineralized tissue (14 +/- 2%; P < 0.05) within a rat cranium critical defect compared with a non-mineralized polymer scaffold (19 +/- 8% osteoid and 10 2% mineralized tissue). Further, the addition of VEGF to a mineralized substrate significantly increased the generation of mineralized tissue (19 +/- 4%; P < 0.05) compared with mineralized substrate alone. This appeared to be due to a significant increase in vascularization throughout VEGF-releasing scaffolds (52 +/- 9 vessels/mm(2); P < 0.05) compared with mineralized scaffolds without VEGF (34 +/- 4 vessels/mm(2)). Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in total osteoid between the two samples, suggesting that increased vascularization enhances mineralized tissue generation, but not necessarily osteoid formation. These results indicate that induced angiogenesis can enhance tissue regeneration, supporting the concept of therapeutic angiogenesis in tissueengineering strategies.

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