scholarly journals Development of carbonate apatite capsules based on degradable coacervate droplets for bone defect treatment

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-217
Author(s):  
Syuuhei Komatsu
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 3659-3670
Author(s):  
Teng Zhang ◽  
Qingguang Wei ◽  
Hua Zhou ◽  
Zehao Jing ◽  
Xiaoguang Liu ◽  
...  

Injury ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 523-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Tarchala ◽  
Victor Engel ◽  
Jake Barralet ◽  
Edward J. Harvey

Materials ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunio Ishikawa ◽  
Youji Miyamoto ◽  
Akira Tsuchiya ◽  
Koichiro Hayashi ◽  
Kanji Tsuru ◽  
...  

Three commercially available artificial bone substitutes with different compositions, hydroxyapatite (HAp; Neobone®), carbonate apatite (CO3Ap; Cytrans®), and β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP; Cerasorb®), were compared with respect to their physical properties and tissue response to bone, using hybrid dogs. Both Neobone® (HAp) and Cerasorb® (β-TCP) were porous, whereas Cytrans® (CO3Ap) was dense. Crystallite size and specific surface area (SSA) of Neobone® (HAp), Cytrans® (CO3Ap), and Cerasorb® (β-TCP) were 75.4 ± 0.9 nm, 30.8 ± 0.8 nm, and 78.5 ± 7.5 nm, and 0.06 m2/g, 18.2 m2/g, and 1.0 m2/g, respectively. These values are consistent with the fact that both Neobone® (HAp) and Cerasorb® (β-TCP) are sintered ceramics, whereas Cytrans® (CO3Ap) is fabricated in aqueous solution. Dissolution in pH 5.3 solution mimicking Howship’s lacunae was fastest in CO3Ap (Cytrans®), whereas dissolution in pH 7.3 physiological solution was fastest in β-TCP (Cerasorb®). These results indicated that CO3Ap is stable under physiological conditions and is resorbed at Howship’s lacunae. Histological evaluation using hybrid dog mandible bone defect model revealed that new bone was formed from existing bone to the center of the bone defect when reconstructed with CO3Ap (Cytrans®) at week 4. The amount of bone increased at week 12, and resorption of the CO3Ap (Cytrans®) was confirmed. β-TCP (Cerasorb®) showed limited bone formation at week 4. However, a larger amount of bone was observed at week 12. Among these three bone substitutes, CO3Ap (Cytrans®) demonstrated the highest level of new bone formation. These results indicate the possibility that bone substitutes with compositions similar to that of bone may have properties similar to those of bone.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi-Yong Zhang ◽  
Ai-Wen Huang ◽  
Jun Jun Fan ◽  
Kuanhai Wei ◽  
Dan Jin ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 2526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Rapp ◽  
Ronny Bindl ◽  
Annika Erbacher ◽  
Anne Kruchen ◽  
Markus Rojewski ◽  
...  

The application of autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) for the treatment of bone defects requires two invasive procedures and several weeks of ex vivo cell expansion. To overcome these limitations, the administration of allogeneic MSC may be attractive, because they are anticipated to be immunoprivileged. Because preclinical studies using various animal models are conflicting with respect to the efficacy of allogeneic MSC, we investigated whether autologous and allogeneic human MSC (hMSC) are equally effective in regenerating bone in a humanized mouse model resembling the human immune system. Applying autologous and allogeneic hMSC in critically sized femoral defects, we found that allogeneic hMSC elicited a mild immune response early after implantation, whereas early angiogenic processes were similar in both treatments. At later healing time points, the transplantation of allogeneic hMSC resulted in less bone formation than autologous hMSC, associated with a reduced expression of the osteogenic factor Runx2 and impaired angiogenesis. We found by species-specific staining for collagen-type-1α2 that MSCs of either source did not synthesize new bone matrix, indicating an indirect contribution of transplanted hMSC to bone regeneration. In conclusion, our data suggest that the application of autologous hMSC is superior to that of allogeneic cells for bone defect treatment.


2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 1235-1244
Author(s):  
Dandan Su ◽  
Wenkai Chang ◽  
Guiping Ma ◽  
Gang Wu ◽  
Jun Nie

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document