4.8 Article

Autologous vs. allogenic mesenchymal progenitor cells for the reconstruction of critical sized segmental tibial bone defects in aged sheep

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 7874-7884

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.04.035

关键词

Bone defect; Mesenchymal progenitor cells; Allogenic; Bone tissue engineering; Ovine animal model

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Wesley Foundation
  3. AO Foundation
  4. German Research Foundation [BE 4492/1-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPCs) represent an attractive cell population for bone tissue engineering. Their special immunological characteristics suggest that MPCs may be used in allogenic applications. The objective of this study was to compare the regenerative potential of autologous vs. allogenic MPCs in an ovine critical size segmental defect model. Ovine MPCs were isolated from bone marrow aspirates, expanded and cultured with osteogenic medium for 2 weeks before implantation. Autologous and allogenic transplantation was performed using the cell-seeded scaffolds and unloaded scaffolds, while the application of autologous bone grafts served as a control group (n = 6). Bone healing was assessed 12 weeks after surgery by radiology, microcomputed tomography, biomechanical testing and histology. Radiology, biomechanical testing and histology revealed no significant differences in bone formation between the autologous and allogenic groups. Both cell groups showed more bone formation than the scaffold alone, whereas the biomechanical data showed no significant differences between the cell groups and the unloaded scaffolds. The results of the study suggest that scaffold-based bone tissue engineering using allogenic cells offers the potential for an off-the-shelf product. Thus the results of this study serve as an important baseline for translation of the assessed concepts into clinical applications. (C) 2013 Acts 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