4.5 Article

The osteoinductive potential of printable, cell-laden hydrogel-ceramic composites

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
卷 100A, 期 9, 页码 2412-2420

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34171

关键词

bone regeneration; organ printing; osteoinductive hydrogel matrices; apatitic nanoparticles; biphasic phosphate microparticles

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [017.001.181]
  2. Dutch Program for Tissue Engineering [UGT.6743]
  3. Dutch Technology Foundation STW (VENI) [08101]
  4. Anna Foundation
  5. Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogels used as injectables or in organ printing often lack the appropriate stimuli to direct osteogenic differentiation of embedded multipotent stromal cells (MSCs), resulting in limited bone formation in these matrices. Addition of calcium phosphate (CaP) particles to the printing mixture is hypothesized to overcome this drawback. In this study we have investigated the effect of CaP particles on the osteoinductive potential of cell-laden hydrogel-CaP composite matrices. To this end, apatitic nanoparticles have been included in Matrigel constructs where after the viability of embedded progenitor cells was assessed in vitro. In addition, the osteoinductive potential of cell-laden Matrigel containing apatitic nanoparticles was investigated in vivo and compared with composites containing osteoinductive biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) microparticles after subcutaneous implantation in immunodeficient mice. Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of the tissue response as well as in vivo bone formation revealed that apatitic nanoparticles were osteoinductive and induced osteoclast activation, but without bone formation. The BCP particles were more effective in inducing elaborate bone formation at the ectopic location. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 100A: 24122420, 2012

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据