4.5 Article

Novel nanostructured scaffold for osteochondral regeneration: pilot study in horses

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/term.243

关键词

osteochondral defect; cartilage lesion; cartilage regeneration; animal study; biomimetic scaffold

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present in vivo preliminary experiment is aimed at testing mechanical and biological behaviour of a new nano-structured composite multilayer biomimefic scaffold for the treatment of chondral and osteochondral defects. The three-dimensional biomimetic scaffold (Fin-Ceramica Faenza S.p.A., Faenza Italy) was obtained by nucleating collagen fibrils with hydroxyapatite nanoparticles, in two configurations, bi- and tri-layered, to reproduce, respectively, chondral and osteochondral anatomy. Chondral defects (lateral condyle) and deep osteochondral defects (medial condyle) were made in the distal epiphysis of the third metacarpal bone of both forelimbs of two adult horses and treated respectively with the chondral and osteochondral grafts. Both animals were euthanised six months follow up. The images obtained at the second look arthroscopy evaluation, performed two months after surgery, demonstrated good filling of the chondral and osteo-chondral defects without any inflammatory reaction around and inside the lesions. At the histological analysis the growth of trabecular bone in the osteochondral lesion was evident. Only in one case, the whole thickness of the osteochondral lesion was filled by fibrocartilaginous tissue. The formation of a tidemark line was evident at the interface with the newly formed bone. Newly formed fibrocartilaginous tissue was present in the area of the chondral defect. Initial alignment of the collagen fibres was recognisable with polarised light in both groups. The results of the present pilot study showed that this novel osteochondral and chondral scaffold may act as a suitable matrix to facilitate orderly regeneration of bone and hyaline-like cartilage. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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