4.5 Article

Reconstruction of critical-size mandibular defects in immunoincompetent rats with human adipose-derived stromal cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 496-503

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.04.002

关键词

Adipose-derived stromal cells; Bone defect; Flat-panel volumetric computed tomography; Small animal imaging; Tissue engineering; Xenogenic transplantation

资金

  1. research foundation of the Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with bony defects, autologous bone grafts are the gold standard for reconstruction. In children, autologous bone harvesting is limited but tissue engineering offers an alternative. Next to bone marrow, adipose tissue is a source of mesenchymal stromal cells, and adipose-derived stromal cells (ADSC) can differentiate into osteocytes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of bioactive implants (ADSC in fibrin glue) for repair of critical-size mandibular defects in athymic rats. Human adult ADSC embedded in fibrin glue were implanted into a critical-size defect in the rat mandible and their efficacy was compared to those of protected bone healing (pbh), autologous bone graft, and an empty defect. The newly formed bone was quantified using high-resolution flat-panel volumetric CT (fpvCT) during different observation times. After eight weeks, the specimens were assessed histologically and by micro-computed tomography (mu-CT). The radiographic examination demonstrated a significantly higher level of ossified defect area in the ADSC side compared with the pbh side. The autologous bone graft side showed significantly enhanced bone formation compared to the empty defect. The histological findings in the specimens with ADSC showed bony bridging of the defect. ADSC were capable of defect reconstruction under our experimental conditions. (C) 2013 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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