scholarly journals Demineralized Bone Matrix Injection in Consolidation Phase Enhances Bone Regeneration in Distraction OsteogenesisviaEndochondral Bone Formation

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji-Beom Kim ◽  
Dong Yeon Lee ◽  
Sang Gyo Seo ◽  
Eo Jin Kim ◽  
Ji Hye Kim ◽  
...  
MRS Bulletin ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 36-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ugo Ripamonti ◽  
Nicolaas Duneas

Recent advances in materials science and biotechnology have given birth to the new and exciting field of tissue engineering, in which the two normally disparate fields are merging into a profitable matrimony. In particular the use of biomaterials capable of initiating new bone formation via a process called osteoinduction is leading to quantum leaps for the tissue engineering of bone.The classic work of Marshall R. Urist and A. Hari Reddi opened the field of osteoinductive biomaterials. Urist discovered that, upon implantation of devitalized, demineralized bone matrix in the muscle of experimental animals, new bone formation occurs within two weeks, a phenomenon he described as bone formation by induction. The tissue response elicited by implantation of demineralized bone matrix in muscle or under the skin includes activation and migration of undifferentiated mesenchymal cells by chemotaxis, anchoragedependent cell attachment to the matrix, mitosis and proliferation of mesenchymal cells, differentiation of cartilage, mineralization of the cartilage, vascular invasion of the cartilage, differentiation of osteoblasts and deposition of bone matrix, and finally mineralization of bone and differentiation of marrow in the newly developed ossicle.The osteoinductive ability of the extracellular matrix of bone is abolished by the dissociative extraction of the demineralized matrix, but is recovered when the extracted component, itself inactive, is reconstituted with the inactive residue—mainly insoluble collagenous bone matrix. This important experiment showed that the osteoinductive signal resides in the solubilized component but needs to be reconstituted with an appropriate carrier to restore the osteoinductive activity. In this case, the carrier is the insoluble collagenous bone matrix—mainly crosslinked type I collagen.


2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don M. Ranly ◽  
Barbara D. Boyan ◽  
Zvi Schwartz ◽  
Christoph H. Lohmann ◽  
Domenico Andreacchio

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 2135-2140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shima Tavakol ◽  
Ahad Khoshzaban ◽  
Mahmoud Azami ◽  
Iraj Ragerdi Kashani ◽  
Hani Tavakol ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiannan Li ◽  
Wenjie Zhang ◽  
Guangdong Zhou ◽  
Yilin Cao ◽  
Wei Liu ◽  
...  

Insufficient neo-vascularization of in vivo implanted cell-seeded scaffold remains a major bottleneck for clinical translation of engineered bone formation. Demineralized bone matrix is an ideal bone scaffold for bone engineering due to its structural and biochemical components similar to those of native bone. We hypothesized that the microcarrier form of demineralized bone matrix favors ingrowth of vessels and bone regeneration upon in vivo implantation. In this study, a rat model of femoral vessel pedicle-based bone engineering was employed by filling the demineralized bone matrix scaffolds inside a silicone chamber that surrounded the vessel pedicles, and to compare the efficiency of vascularized bone regeneration between microcarrier demineralized bone matrix and block demineralized bone matrix. The results showed that bone marrow stem cells better adhered to microcarrier demineralized bone matrix and produced more extracellular matrices during in vitro culture. After in vivo implantation, microcarrier demineralized bone matrix seeded with bone marrow stem cells formed relatively more bone tissue than block demineralized bone matrix counterpart at three months upon histological examination. Furthermore, micro-computed tomography three-dimensional reconstruction showed that microcarrier demineralized bone matrix group regenerate significantly better and more bone tissues than block demineralized bone matrix both qualitatively and quantitatively (p < 0.05). Moreover, micro-computed tomography reconstructed angiographic images also demonstrated significantly enhanced tissue vascularization in microcarrier demineralized bone matrix group than in block demineralized bone matrix group both qualitatively and quantitatively (p < 0.05). Anti-CD31 immunohistochemical staining of (micro-) vessels and semi-quantitative analysis also evidenced enhanced vascularization of regenerated bone in microcarrier demineralized bone matrix group than in block demineralized bone matrix group (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the microcarrier form of demineralized bone matrix is an ideal bone regenerative scaffold due to its advantages of osteoinductivity and vascular induction, two essentials for in vivo bone regeneration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document