4.4 Article

In vivo alveolar bone regeneration by bone marrow stem cells/fibrin glue composition

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORAL BIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 238-244

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2011.08.025

关键词

Alveolar bone defect; Bone regeneration; Bone marrow stem cells; Tissue engineering

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30572096]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The repair of alveolar bone defects caused by trauma, periodontal diseases and inflammation is still a challenge for both researchers and clinicians. Although there are many attempts to regenerate bone based on different seed cells and scaffolds, the results are still unsatisfactory. This study aims to clarify whether it could be efficient to reconstruct the alveolar bone by the combination of bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) without pre-osteoinduction in vitro with fibrin glue (FG). The BMSCs were obtained from 2-week-old Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats and expanded in vitro with non-introduction. Afterwards, they were composited with FG for in vivo implantation. The animal models of traumatic alveolar bone defects were established bilaterally in the maxilla of 15 rats which were randomly divided into 3 groups. The BMSCs/FG composition was transplanted into 5 rats of the treated group. Another 5 rats in the negative control group were transplanted by pure FG without BMSCs. The rest 5 rats served as the blank control. Gross observation and histological analysis were made to evaluate the new bone formation 6 weeks after transplantation. Micro-CT was also used to estimate the bone healing through three-dimensional reconstruction and the bone density analysis. The amount of new bone formed in the treated group was significantly greater than the negative and blank control. Our results suggest that the strategy of combing BMSCs with FG is effective in the repair of alveolar bone defects. Its clinical application is promising. Crown Copyright, (C) 2011 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

4.4
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