4.2 Article

In vivo and in vitro evaluation of an Acetobacter xylinum synthesized microbial cellulose membrane intended for guided tissue repair

期刊

ACTA VETERINARIA SCANDINAVICA
卷 51, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-51-12

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Barrier materials as cellulose membranes are used for guided tissue repair. However, it is essential that the surrounding tissues accept the device. The present study histologically evaluated tissue reaction to a microbial cellulose membrane after subcutaneous implantation in mice. Furthermore, the interaction between mesenchymal stem cells and the biomaterial was studied in vitro to evaluate its ability to act as cellular scaffold for tissue engineering. Methods: Twenty-five Swiss Albino mice were used. A 10 x 10 mm cellulose membrane obtained through biosynthesis using Acetobacter xylinum bacteria was implanted into the lumbar subcutaneous tissue of each mouse. The mice were euthanatized at seven, 15, 30, 60, and 90 days, and the membrane and surrounding tissues were collected and examined by histology. Results: A mild inflammatory response without foreign body reaction was observed until 30 days post-surgery around the implanted membrane. Polarized microscopy revealed that the membrane remained intact at all evaluation points. Scanning electron microscopy of the cellulose membrane surface showed absence of pores. The in vitro evaluation of the interaction between cells and biomaterial was performed through viability staining analysis of the cells over the biomaterial, which showed that 95% of the mesenchymal stem cells aggregating to the cellulose membrane were alive and that 5% were necrotic. Scanning electron microscopy showed mesenchymal stem cells with normal morphology and attached to the cellulose membrane surface. Conclusion: The microbial cellulose membrane evaluated was found to be nonresorbable, induced a mild inflammatory response and may prove useful as a scaffold for mesenchymal stem cells.

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

4.2
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