Premium
Testing a novel nanofibre scaffold for utility in bone tissue regeneration
Author(s) -
Howie R. Nicole,
Durham Emily,
Oakes Brayden,
Grey Zachary,
Smith Jason,
Campbell Phil,
LaRue Amanda,
Steed Martin,
MuiseHelmericks Robin,
Cray James
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.835
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1932-7005
pISSN - 1932-6254
DOI - 10.1002/term.2740
Subject(s) - bone morphogenetic protein 2 , scaffold , regeneration (biology) , biomedical engineering , chemistry , alkaline phosphatase , bone morphogenetic protein , bone healing , bone tissue , dentistry , microbiology and biotechnology , anatomy , medicine , in vitro , biology , biochemistry , gene , enzyme
Many variables serve to alter the process of bone remodelling and diminish regeneration including the size and nature of the wound bed and health status of the individual. To overcome these inhibitory factors, tissue‐engineered osteoconductive scaffolds paired with various growth factors have been utilized clinically. However, many limitations still remain, for example, bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) can lead to rampant inflammation, ectopic bone formation, and graft failure. Here, we studied the ability for a nanofiber scaffold (Talymed) to accelerate BMP2 growth factor‐induced bone healing compared with the traditional absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) delivery system. One hundred fifty‐five adult wild type mice were arranged in 16 groups by time, 4 and 8 weeks, and treatment, ACS or Talymed, loaded with control, low, medium, or high dosages of BMP2. Skulls were subjected to microCT, biomechanical, and histological analysis to assess bone regeneration. The use of Talymed within the defect site was found to decrease the bone volume, bone formation rate, and alkaline phosphatase activity compared with ACS/BMP2 combinations. Interestingly, though Talymed regenerated less bone, the regenerate was found to have a greater hardness value than that of bone within the ACS groups. However, the difference in bone hardness between scaffolds was not detectable by 8 weeks. Based on these results, we found that the nanofiber scaffold generated a better quality of bone regenerate at 4 weeks but, due to the lack of overall bone formation and the inhibition of normal remodelling processes, was not as efficacious as the current clinical standard ACS/BMP2 therapy.