4.8 Article

A mechanical evaluation of three decellularization methods in the design of a xenogeneic scaffold for tissue engineering the temporomandibular joint disc

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 808-816

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.01.016

关键词

tissue engineering; temporomandibular joint; xenogeneic scaffold; mechanical properties; hysteresis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tissue-engineered temporomandibular joint (TMJ) discs offer a viable treatment option for patients with severe joint internal derangement. To date, only a handful of TMJ tissue engineering studies have been carried out and all have incorporated the use of synthetic scaffold materials. These current scaffolds have shown limited success in recapitulating morphological and functional aspects of the native disc tissue. The present study is the first to investigate the potential of a xenogeneic scaffold for use in tissue engineering the TMJ disc. The effects of decellularization agents on the disc's mechanical properties were assessed using three common decellularization protocols: Triton X-100, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and an acetone/ethanol solution. Decellularized scaffolds were subsequently characterized through cyclic mechanical testing at physiologically relevant frequencies to determine which chemical agent most accurately preserved the native tissue properties. Results have shown that porcine discs treated with SDS most closely matched the energy dissipation capabilities and resistance to deformation of the native tissue. Treatments using Triton X-100 caused the resultant tissue to become relatively softer with inferior energy dissipation capabilities, while treatment using acetone/ethanol led to a significantly stiffer and dehydrated material. These findings support the potential of a porcine-derived scaffold decellularized by SDS as a xenograft for TMJ disc reconstruction. (c) 2008 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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