4.6 Article

Regeneration of lingual musculature in rats using myoblasts over porcine bladder acellular matrix

期刊

ORAL DISEASES
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 1580-1589

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13674

关键词

hemiglossectomized tongues; neonatal myoblasts; porcine acellular urinary bladder matrix; tissue engineering muscle repair; volumetric muscle loss

资金

  1. University of Murcia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that using porcine AUBM and neonatal myoblasts is an effective treatment for regenerating lingual musculature in hemiglossectomized rats, showing positive outcomes in terms of weight gain, tissue occupation, and antibody positivity.
Objectives To use tissue engineering muscle repair (TEMR) for regenerating the lingual musculature of hemiglossectomized rats using neonatal myoblasts (NM) on porcine acellular urinary bladder matrix (AUBM). Material and Methods The study used 80 male rats. A volumetric muscle loss (VML) injury was created on the left side of the tongue. The rats were randomized into four groups: Group 1 (AUBM + myoblasts); Group 2 (AUBM); Group 3 (myoblasts); and Group 4 (control). NM were obtained from neonatal rats. The animals were weighed on day 0 and just before euthanasia. Five rats in each group were euthanized at days 2, 14, 28, and 42; the tongues were prepared for morphometric analysis, postoperative left hemitongue weight, and immunohistochemical analysis (desmin, CD-31, and anti-neurofilament). Results The weight gain from greatest to least was as follows: AUBM + myoblasts > myoblasts > AUBM > control. The tongue dorsum occupied by VML, and difference in mg between control side and intervened side from least to great was as follows: AUBM + myoblasts < myoblasts < AUBM < control. The order from highest to lowest antibody positivity was as follows: AUBM + myoblasts > myoblasts > AUBM > control. Conclusion The use of porcine AUBM and NM for the regeneration of lingual musculature was found to be an effective TEMR treatment for repairing tongue VML injury.

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

4.6
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