4.2 Review

Mesenchymal stem cells and bone regeneration

期刊

VETERINARY SURGERY
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 232-242

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2006.00142.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective - To review the role of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) in bone formation and regeneration, and outline the development of strategies that use MSC in bone healing and regeneration. Study Design - Literature review. Methods - Medline review, synopses of authors' published research. Results - The MSC is the basic cellular unit of embryologic bone formation. Secondary bone healing mimics bone formation with proliferation of MSC then their differentiation into components of fracture callus. Bone regeneration, where large amounts of bone must form, mimics bone healing and can be achieved with MSC combined with strategies of osteogenesis, osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and osteopromotion. MSC based strategies first employed isolated and culture expanded stem cells in an osteoconductive carrier to successfully regenerate a critical segmental defect in the femur of dogs, which was as effective as autogenous cancellous bone. Because MSC appeared to be immunologically privileged, a study using mismatched allogeneic stem cells demonstrated that these cells would regenerate bone without inciting an immunologic response, documenting the possibility of banked allogeneic MSC for bone regeneration. A technique was developed for selectively retaining MSC from large bone marrow aspirates at surgery for bone regeneration. These techniques utilized osteoconductive and osteoinductive carriers and resulted in bone regeneration that was similar to autogenous cancellous bone. Conclusion - MSC can be manipulated and combined with carriers that will result in bone regeneration of critically sized bone defects. Clinical Relevance - These techniques can be employed clinically to regenerate bone and serve as an alternative to autogenous cancellous bone. (C) Copyright 2006 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.

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