4.0 Article

Human osteoprogenitor bone formation using encapsulated bone morphogenetic protein 2 in porous polymer scaffolds

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING
卷 10, 期 7-8, 页码 1037-1045

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.2004.10.1037

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [GR/S27276/01] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to deliver, over time, biologically active osteogenic growth factors by means of designed scaffolds to sites of tissue regeneration offers tremendous therapeutic opportunities in a variety of musculoskeletal diseases. The aims of this study were to generate porous biodegradable scaffolds encapsulating an osteogenic protein, bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2), and to examine the ability of the scaffolds to promote human osteoprogenitor differentiation and bone formation in vitro and in vivo. BMP-2-encapsulated poly(DL-lactic acid) (PLA) scaffolds were generated by an innovative supercritical fluid process developed for solvent-sensitive and thermolabile growth factors. BMP-2 released from encapsulated constructs promoted adhesion, migration, expansion, and differentiation of human osteoprogenitor cells on three-dimensional scaffolds. Enhanced matrix synthesis and cell differentiation on growth factor-encapsulated scaffolds was observed after culture in an ex vivo model of bone formation developed on the basis of the chick chorioallantoic membrane model. BMP-2-encapsulated polymer scaffolds showed morphologic evidence of new bone matrix and cartilage formation after subcutaneous implantation and within diffusion chambers implanted into athymic mice as assessed by X-ray analysis and immunocytochemistry. The generation of three-dimensional biomimetic structures incorporating osteoinductive factors such as BMP-2 indicates their potential for de novo bone formation that exploits cell-matrix interactions and, significantly, realistic delivery protocols for growth factors in musculoskeletal tissue engineering.

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

4.0
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