Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 47–55 | Cite as

Evaluation of the ability of collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffolds with or without mesenchymal stem cells to heal bone defects in Wistar rats

  • M. Alhag
  • E. Farrell
  • M. Toner
  • T. Clive Lee
  • F. J. O’Brien
  • N. Claffey
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this experiment was to examine the capacity of collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffolds, with or without mesenchymal stem cells, to satisfactorily repair a 5-mm rat calvarial defect.

Methods

Fifty-five Wistar rats were used in the study. The defects were either left empty to serve as controls (n = 7) or filled with cell-free scaffolds (n = 11), cell-seeded scaffolds that were pre-cultured in standard culture medium (n = 13), cell-seeded scaffolds that were pre-cultured in osteoinductive factor-supplemented medium (n = 12) or particulate autogenous bone (n = 12). The animals were sacrificed at 12 weeks after surgery, and specimens were prepared for histomorphometric analysis. The linear bone healing and the bone area within the defect were measured.

Results

Comparable results were obtained using cell-free collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffolds and autogenous bone both in terms of linear bone healing (P < 0.986) and area of new bone (P < 0.846). While the test groups showed significantly more bone formation compared to the empty defect control group, the linear bone healing and area of new bone within the defect were significantly lower in the cell-seeded scaffolds than in the cell-free scaffolds. The results have demonstrated that a cell-free collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffold is capable of repairing a 5-mm rat calvarial defect as effectively as autogenous bone and that seeding the scaffold with pre-cultured mesenchymal stem cells prior to implantation offered no beneficial effect and resulted in incomplete healing of the defect.

Conclusions

The results thus suggest that the scaffold has immense potential for tissue repair showing favorable osteoconductive properties, biocompatibility and degradability.

Keywords

Collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffold Mesenchymal stem cells Osteogenesis Histology 

References

  1. 1.
    Wan DC, Siedhoff MT, Kwan MD, Nacamuli RP, Wu BM, Longaker MT (2007) Refining retinoic acid stimulation for osteogenic differentiation of murine adipose-derived adult stromal cells. Tissue Eng 13:1623–1631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glowacki J, Mizuno S (2008) Collagen scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biopolymers 89:338–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruder SP, Kurth AA, Shea M, Hayes WC, Jaiswal N, Kadiyala S (1998) Bone regeneration by implantation of purified, culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells. J Orthop Res 16:155–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farrell E, O'Brien FJ, Doyle P, Fischer J, Yannas I, Harley BA, O’Connell B, Prendergast PJ, Campbell VA (2006) A collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffold supports adult rat mesenchymal stem cell differentiation along osteogenic and chondrogenic routes. Tissue Eng 12:459–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farrell E, Byrne EM, Fischer J, O'Brien FJ, O'Connell BC, Prendergast PJ, Campbell VA (2007) A comparison of the osteogenic potential of adult rat mesenchymal stem cells cultured in 2-D and on 3-D collagen glycosaminoglycan scaffolds. Technol Health Care 15:19–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byrne EM, Farrell E, McMahon LA, Haugh MG, O'Brien FJ, Campbell VA, Prendergast PJ, O'Connell BC (2008) Gene expression by marrow stromal cells in a porous collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffold is affected by pore size and mechanical stimulation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19:3455–3463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumarasuriyar A, Jackson RA, Grondahl L, Trau M, Nurcombe V, Cool SM (2005) Poly(beta-hydroxybutyrate-co-beta-hydroxyvalerate) supports in vitro osteogenesis. Tissue Eng 11:1281–1295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonzani IC, Adhikari R, Houshyar S, Mayadunne R, Gunatillake P, Stevens MM (2007) Synthesis of two-component injectable polyurethanes for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 28:423–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silva GA, Coutinho OP, Ducheyne P, Shapiro IM, Reis RL (2007) The effect of starch and starch-bioactive glass composite microparticles on the adhesion and expression of the osteoblastic phenotype of a bone cell line. Biomaterials 28:326–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hollinger JO, Winn S, Bonadio J (2000) Options for tissue engineering to address challenges of the aging skeleton. Tissue Eng 6:341–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O'Brien FJ, Harley BA, Yannas IV, Gibson L (2004) Influence of freezing rate on pore structure in freeze-dried collagen–GAG scaffolds. Biomaterials 25:1077–1086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O'Brien FJ, Harley BA, Yannas IV, Gibson LJ (2005) The effect of pore size on cell adhesion in collagen–GAG scaffolds. Biomaterials 26:433–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O'Brien FJ, Harley BA, Waller MA, Yannas IV, Gibson LJ, Prendergast PJ (2007) The effect of pore size on permeability and cell attachment in collagen scaffolds for tissue engineering. Technol Health Care 15:3–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barry FP, Boynton RE, Haynesworth S, Murphy JM, Zaia J (1999) The monoclonal antibody SH-2, raised against human mesenchymal stem cells, recognizes an epitope on endoglin (CD105). Biochem Biophys Res Commun 265:134–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kearney EM, Prendergast PJ, Campbell VA (2008) Mechanisms of strain-mediated mesenchymal stem cell apoptosis. J Biomech Eng 130:061004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rochefort GY, Vaudin P, Bonnet N, Pages JC, Domenech J, Charbord P, Eder V (2005) Influence of hypoxia on the domiciliation of mesenchymal stem cells after infusion into rats: possibilities of targeting pulmonary artery remodeling via cells therapies? Respir Res 6:125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McMahon LA, Reid AJ, Campbell VA, Prendergast PJ (2008) Regulatory effects of mechanical strain on the chondrogenic differentiation of MSCs in a collagen–GAG scaffold: experimental and computational analysis. Ann Biomed Eng 36:185–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen PD, Lin CD, Allori AC, Ricci JL, Saadeh PB, Warren SM (2009) Establishment of a critical-sized alveolar defect in the rat: a model for human gingivoperiosteoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 123(3):817–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gosain AK, Song L, Yu P, Mehrara BJ, Maeda CY, Gold LI, Longaker MT (2000) Osteogenesis in cranial defects: reassessment of the concept of critical size and the expression of TGF-beta isoforms. Plast Reconstr Surg 106(2):360–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bosch C, Melsen B, Vargervik K (1998) Importance of the critical-size bone defect in testing bone-regenerating materials. J Craniofac Surg 9:310–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Donos N, Lang NP, Karoussis IK, Bosshardt D, Tonetti M, Kostopoulos L (2004) Effect of GBR in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/or enamel matrix proteins on the healing of critical-size defects. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:101–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Furlaneto FA, Nagata MJ, Fucini SE, Deliberador TM, Okamoto T, Messora MR (2007) Bone healing in critical-size defects treated with bioactive glass/calcium sulfate: a histologic and histometric study in rat calvaria. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:311–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sawyer AA, Song SJ, Susanto E, Chuan P, Lam CX, Woodruff MA, Hutmacher DW, Cool SM (2009) The stimulation of healing within a rat calvarial defect by mPCL-TCP/collagen scaffolds loaded with rhBMP-2. Biomaterials 30:2479–2488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alhag M, Farrell E, Toner M, Claffey N, Lee TC, O'Brien FJ (2011) Evaluation of early healing events around mesenchymal stem cell-seeded collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffold. An experimental study in Wistar rats. Oral Maxillofac Surg 15:31–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Inoda H, Yamamoto G, Hattori T (2004) Histological investigation of osteoinductive properties of rh-BMP2 in a rat calvarial bone defect model. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 32:365–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petrovic L, Schlegel AK, Schultze-Mosgau S, Wiltfang J (2006) Different substitute biomaterials as potential scaffolds in tissue engineering. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 21:225–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mizuno M, Shindo M, Kobayashi D, Tsuruga E, Amemiya A, Kuboki Y (1997) Osteogenesis by bone marrow stromal cells maintained on type I collagen matrix gels in vivo. Bone 20:101–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khan SN, Tomin E, Lane JM (2000) Clinical applications of bone graft substitutes. Orthop Clin North Am 31:389–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buser D, Hoffmann B, Bernard JP, Lussi A, Mettler D, Schenk RK (1998) Evaluation of filling materials in membrane-protected bone defects. A comparative histomorphometric study in the mandible of miniature pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 9:137–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sung HJ, Meredith C, Johnson C, Galis ZS (2004) The effect of scaffold degradation rate on three-dimensional cell growth and angiogenesis. Biomaterials 25:5735–5742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Laschke MW, Haufel JM, Thorlacius H, Menger MD (2005) New experimental approach to study host tissue response to surgical mesh materials in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res A 74:696–704PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meikle MC, Papaioannou S, Ratledge TJ, Speight PM, Watt-Smith SR, Hill PA, Reynolds JJ (1994) Effect of poly DL-lactide-co-glycolide implants and xenogeneic bone matrix-derived growth factors on calvarial bone repair in the rabbit. Biomaterials 15:513–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, Marinello CP, Lindhe J, Klinge B (1995) Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 22:255–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee CR, Breinan HA, Nehrer S, Spector M (2000) Articular cartilage chondrocytes in type I and type II collagen–GAG matrices exhibit contractile behavior in vitro. Tissue Eng 6:555–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ma L, Gao C, Mao Z, Zhou J, Shen J (2004) Biodegradability and cell-mediated contraction of porous collagen scaffolds: the effect of lysine as a novel crosslinking bridge. J Biomed Mater Res A 71:334–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mueller SM, Schneider TO, Shortkroff S, Breinan HA, Spector M (1999) alpha-smooth muscle actin and contractile behavior of bovine meniscus cells seeded in type I and type II collagen–GAG matrices. J Biomed Mater Res 45:157–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Torres DS, Freyman TM, Yannas IV, Spector M (2000) Tendon cell contraction of collagen–GAG matrices in vitro: effect of cross-linking. Biomaterials 21:1607–1619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ohgushi H, Caplan AI (1999) Stem cell technology and bioceramics: from cell to gene engineering. J Biomed Mater Res 48:913–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang J, Glimcher MJ (1999) Characterization of matrix-induced osteogenesis in rat calvarial bone defects: I. Differences in the cellular response to demineralized bone matrix implanted in calvarial defects and in subcutaneous sites. Calcif Tissue Int 65:156–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang J, Glimcher MJ (1999) Characterization of matrix-induced osteogenesis in rat calvarial bone defects: II. Origins of bone-forming cells. Calcif Tissue Int 65:486–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Terada S, Sato M, Sevy A, Vacanti JP (2000) Tissue engineering in the twenty-first century. Yonsei Med J 41:685–691PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lee KY, Alsberg E, Mooney DJ (2001) Degradable and injectable poly(aldehyde guluronate) hydrogels for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res 56:228–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mizuno M, Imai T, Fujisawa R, Tani H, Kuboki Y (2000) Bone sialoprotein (BSP) is a crucial factor for the expression of osteoblastic phenotypes of bone marrow cells cultured on type I collagen matrix. Calcif Tissue Int 66:388–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Iwata H, Sakano S, Itoh T, Bauer TW (2002) Demineralized bone matrix and native bone morphogenetic protein in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 395:99–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Alhag
    • 1
  • E. Farrell
    • 3
    • 4
  • M. Toner
    • 1
  • T. Clive Lee
    • 2
    • 3
  • F. J. O’Brien
    • 2
    • 3
  • N. Claffey
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Dental ScienceTrinity CollegeDublinIreland
  2. 2.Department of AnatomyRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandDublinIreland
  3. 3.Trinity Centre for BioengineeringTrinity CollegeDublinIreland
  4. 4.Department of OrthopaedicsErasmus University Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations