4.5 Article

The healing of critical-size calvarial bone defects in rat with rhPDGF-BB, BMSCs, and β-TCP scaffolds

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10856-012-4558-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30772431, 30772434, 30973342]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-08-0353]
  3. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [0952nm04000, 10430710900, 10dz2211600]
  4. Shanghai Education Committee [T0203, 07SG19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Platelet-derived growth factor-BB (PDGF-BB) plays important roles in regenerating damaged tissue. In this study we investigated the effects of a tissue-engineered bone combined with recombinant human PDGF-BB (rhPDGF-BB), bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) and beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) to repair critical-size calvarial bone defects in rat. Proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs treated with different concentration rhPDGF-BB (0, 10, and 50 ng/ml) was evaluated by MTT, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, alizarin red staining and real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) analysis of osteogenic gene. BMSCs were then combined with rhPDGF-BB-loaded beta-TCP and transplanted into 5 mm calvarial bone defects. The new bone formation and mineralization was evaluated by micro-computerized tomography (Micro-CT) and histological analysis at week 8 after operation. It was observed that the proliferation of BMSCs treated with rhPDGF-BB was enhanced with a time- and dose- dependent manner. There were increased ALP activity, mineralized deposition and elevated mRNA levels of osteogenic gene for BMSCs treated with rhPDGF-BB, particularly in the 50 ng/ml group. Histological analysis showed new bone formation and mineralization in the rhPDGF-BB/BMSCs/beta-TCP group was significantly higher than BMSCs/beta-TCP, rhPDGF-BB/beta-TCP, and beta-TCP alone group (P < 0.05). In conclusion, rhPDGF-BB/BMSCs/beta-TCP is a promising tissue-engineered bone for craniofacial bone regeneration.

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