4.7 Article

Enhanced BMP-2-Mediated Bone Repair Using an Anisotropic Silk Fibroin Scaffold Coated with Bone-like Apatite

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23010283

关键词

silk scaffold; pseudarthrosis; nonunion; critical sized defect; bone regeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, silk scaffolds with axially aligned pores were generated and treated with simulated body fluid to create a calcium phosphate coating. In vivo experiments demonstrated that silk scaffolds loaded with a low dose of rhBMP-2 and coated with calcium phosphate significantly improved bone regeneration, providing effective bone repair.
The repair of large bone defects remains challenging and often requires graft material due to limited availability of autologous bone. In clinical settings, collagen sponges loaded with excessive amounts of bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) are occasionally used for the treatment of bone non-unions, increasing the risk of adverse events. Therefore, strategies to reduce rhBMP-2 dosage are desirable. Silk scaffolds show great promise due to their favorable biocompatibility and their utility for various biofabrication methods. For this study, we generated silk scaffolds with axially aligned pores, which were subsequently treated with 10x simulated body fluid (SBF) to generate an apatitic calcium phosphate coating. Using a rat femoral critical sized defect model (CSD) we evaluated if the resulting scaffold allows the reduction of BMP-2 dosage to promote efficient bone repair by providing appropriate guidance cues. Highly porous, anisotropic silk scaffolds were produced, demonstrating good cytocompatibility in vitro and treatment with 10x SBF resulted in efficient surface coating. In vivo, the coated silk scaffolds loaded with a low dose of rhBMP-2 demonstrated significantly improved bone regeneration when compared to the unmineralized scaffold. Overall, our findings show that this simple and cost-efficient technique yields scaffolds that enhance rhBMP-2 mediated bone healing.

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