4.7 Article

Accelerated craniofacial bone regeneration through dense collagen gel scaffolds seeded with dental pulp stem cells

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/srep38814

关键词

-

资金

  1. University Paris Descartes
  2. University Paris Diderot
  3. Fondation de la Recherche Medicale [DBS20131128438]
  4. Plateforme d'imagerie du Vivant Paris Descartes [FRM DGE20111123012]
  5. Fondation des Gueules Cassees
  6. National French agency for research (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Therapies using mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) seeded scaffolds may be applicable to various fields of regenerative medicine, including craniomaxillofacial surgery. Plastic compression of collagen scaffolds seeded with MSC has been shown to enhance the osteogenic differentiation of MSC as it increases the collagen fibrillary density. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the osteogenic effects of dense collagen gel scaffolds seeded with mesenchymal dental pulp stem cells (DPSC) on bone regeneration in a rat critical-size calvarial defect model. Two symmetrical full-thickness defects were created (5 mm diameter) and filled with either a rat DPSC-containing dense collagen gel scaffold (n = 15), or an acellular scaffold (n = 15). Animals were imaged in vivo by microcomputer tomography (Micro-CT) once a week during 5 weeks, whereas some animals were sacrificed each week for histology and histomorphometry analysis. Bone mineral density and bone micro-architectural parameters were significantly increased when DPSC-seeded scaffolds were used. Histological and histomorphometrical data also revealed significant increases in fibrous connective and mineralized tissue volume when DPSC-seeded scaffolds were used, associated with expression of type I collagen, osteoblast-associated alkaline phosphatase and osteoclastic-related tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase. Results demonstrate the potential of DPSC-loaded-dense collagen gel scaffolds to benefit of bone healing process.

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

4.7
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