Three-dimensional polymer coated 45S5-type bioactive glass scaffolds seeded with human mesenchymal stem cells show bone formation in vivo
- 650 Downloads
45S5-type bioactive glasses are a promising alternative to established substitutes for the treatment of bone defects. Because the three-dimensional (3D) structure of bone substitutes is crucial for bone ingrowth and formation, we evaluated the osteoinductive properties of different polymer coated 3D-45S5 bioactive glass (BG) scaffolds seeded with human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSC) in vivo. BG scaffolds coated with gelatin, cross-linked gelatin, and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) were seeded with hMSC prior to implantation into severe combined immunodeficiency mice. Newly formed bone was evaluated with histomorphometry and micro-computed tomography. Bone formation was detectable in all groups, whereas the gelatin-coated BG scaffolds showed the best results and should be considered in further studies.
The authors thank Tyler Swing for proofreading, Tom Bruckner for the support according the statistical analysis, and Birgit Frey for histomorphometric processing. This study was financed by the research grant of the Center of Orthopedics, Traumatology, and Spinal Cord Injury, Heidelberg University Hospital.
- 5.Ilharreborde B, Morel E, Fitoussi F, Presedo A, Souchet P, Pennecot GF, et al. Bioactive glass as a bone substitute for spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparative study with iliac crest autograft. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28(3):347–51. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318168d1d4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Pernaa K, Koski I, Mattila K, Gullichsen E, Heikkila J, Aho AJ, et al. Bioactive glass S53P4 and autograft bone in treatment of depressed tibial plateau fractures—a prospective randomized 11-year follow-up. J Long Term Eff Med Implant. 2011;21(2):139–48. doi: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v21.i2.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Arabnejad S, Burnett Johnston R, Pura JA, Singh B, Tanzer M, Pasini D. High-strength porous biomaterials for bone replacement: a strategy to assess the interplay between cell morphology, mechanical properties, bone ingrowth and manufacturing constraints. Acta Biomater. 2016;30:345–56. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.10.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Westhauser F, Weis C, Hoellig M, Swing T, Schmidmaier G, Weber M-A, et al. Heidelberg-mCT-analyzer: a novel method for standardized microcomputed-tomography-guided evaluation of scaffold properties in bone and tissue research. R Soc Open Sci. 2015;2:150496. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Kuehlfluck P, Moghaddam A, Helbig L, Child C, Wildemann B, Schmidmaier G. RIA fractions contain mesenchymal stroma cells with high osteogenic potency. Injury. 2015;46(S8):S2–11.Google Scholar
- 18.Philippart A, Boccaccini AR, Fleck C, Schubert DW, Roether JA. Toughening and functionalization of bioactive ceramic and glass bone scaffolds by biopolymer coatings and infiltration: a review of the last 5 years. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(1):93–111. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2015.958075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Dominici M, Le Blanc K, Mueller I, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Marini F, Krause D, et al. Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. the international society for cellular therapy position statement. Cytotherapy. 2006;8(4):315–7. doi: 10.1080/14653240600855905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Brocher J, Janicki P, Voltz P, Seebach E, Neumann E, Mueller-Ladner U, et al. Inferior ectopic bone formation of mesenchymal stromal cells from adipose tissue compared to bone marrow: rescue by chondrogenic pre-induction. Stem Cell Res. 2013;11(3):1393–406. doi: 10.1016/j.scr.2013.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar