4.2 Article

Direct and Indirect Effects of a Combination of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells and Platelet-Rich Plasma on Bone Regeneration

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
卷 21, 期 5-6, 页码 895-905

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2014.0336

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A key goal for successful bone regeneration is to bridge a bone defect using healing procedures that are stable and durable. Adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) have the potential to differentiate into bone. Meanwhile, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an interesting biological means to repair tissue by inducing chemotactic, proliferative, and anabolic cellular responses. This study evaluated bone regeneration using a combination of ASCs and PRP in a rat calvarial defect model. ASCs were isolated from inguinal fat pads of F344 inbred rats, while PRP was prepared from these rats. ASCs were cultured in control medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum or 5% PRP in vitro. After 1 week, levels of growth factors including insulin-like growth factor-1, transforming growth factor-beta 1, hepatocyte growth factor, and vascular endothelial growth factor in the culture supernatant were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Moreover, the ASC/PRP admixture was transplanted into the rat calvarial defect. Microcomputed tomography, histological, and immunohistochemical (osteopontin and osteocalcin) analyses were performed at 4 and 8 weeks after transplantation. The in vitro study showed that the levels of growth factors secreted by ASCs were significantly increased by the addition of PRP. Transplantation of the ASC/PRP admixture had dramatic effects on bone regeneration overtime in comparison with rats that received other transplants. Furthermore, some ASCs directly differentiated into osteogenic cells in vivo. These findings suggest that the combination of ASCs and PRP has augmentative effects on bone regeneration. The ASC/PRP admixture may be a promising source for the clinical treatment of cranial defects.

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

4.2
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