10.1007/s40204-018-0092-3

Allogenic vs. synthetic granules for bone tissue engineering: an in vitro study

HTML PDF
  • Farnaz Kouhestani1,
  • Farnaz Dehabadi2,
  • Mehrnoosh Hasan Shahriari3,
  • Saeed Reza Motamedian*4,
  1. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR
  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR
  3. Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR
  4. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR
Cover Image

Published in Issue 2018-07-17

How to Cite

Kouhestani, F., Dehabadi, F., Hasan Shahriari, M., & Motamedian, S. R. (2018). Allogenic vs. synthetic granules for bone tissue engineering: an in vitro study. Progress in Biomaterials, 7(2 (June 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40204-018-0092-3
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract The aim of this study was to compare human dental pulp stem cells’ (DPSCs) attachment, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation on allogenic and synthetic biphasic bone granules. In this in vitro study, two types of bone granules were used: allograft [freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA)] and biphasic granules [hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate (HA/β-TCP)]. By isolation of DPSCs, their attachment to bone granules was observed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) at day 1 and 7 of cultivation. Vital cells were measured by MTT assay at 1, 3, and 7 days of cell culture. Comparison of vital cells at different time points was considered as cell proliferation. Finally, differentiation of DPSCs was evaluated by measurement of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity 3, 7, 14, and 21 days after cell seeding in standard and osteogenic media. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA with a significant level of 0.05. Attachment of DPSCs on FDBA granules seemed relatively stronger. The number of cells (based on MTT values) and ALP activity of the cells cultured on both study groups increased between time points ( p  ≤ 0.001). FDBA granules had more cells compared to HA/β-TCP granules ( p  < 0.001). There was no significant difference between ALP activity of two study groups cultured in the standard medium ( p  = 0.347) and they were both higher than the control group ( p  < 0.05). In the osteogenic medium, FDBA group had significantly higher ALP activity compared to HA/β-TCP ( p  = 0.035) and control ( p  = 0.001) groups while there was no significant difference between ALP activity of HA/β-TCP and control groups ( p  = 0.645). In conclusion, current in vitro study revealed that FDBA granules have more potential in supporting DPSCs attachment and proliferation and inducing their ALP activity compared to HA/β-TCP granules. Therefore, FDBA could serve as a proper bone substitute material.

Keywords

  • Bone regeneration,
  • Tissue engineering,
  • Bone substitute,
  • Dental pulp stem cells,
  • Tricalcium phosphate,
  • Hydroxyapatite,
  • Allograft,
  • In vitro study
HTML PDF

References

  1. Arinzeh et al. (2005) A comparative study of biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics for human mesenchymal stem-cell-induced bone formation (pp. 3631-3638) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.09.035
  2. Beck GR, Sullivan EC, Moran E, Zerler B (1998) Relationship between alkaline phosphatase levels, osteopontin expression, and mineralization in differentiating MC3T3-E1 osteoblasts. J Cell Biochem 68:269. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4644(19980201)68:2<269::AID-JCB13>3.0.CO;2-A
  3. Bowers et al. (1992) Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro
  4. Carr and Hyatt (1955) Clinical evaluation of freeze-dried bone grafts https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-195537030-00010
  5. Cordonnier et al. (2010) 3D environment on human mesenchymal stem cells differentiation for bone tissue engineering (pp. 981-987) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-009-3916-9
  6. Cordonnier et al. (2014) Osteoblastic differentiation and potent osteogenicity of three-dimensional hBMSC-BCP particle constructs (pp. 364-376) https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1529
  7. Farina et al. (2008) In vivo behaviour of two different biphasic ceramic implanted in mandibular bone of dogs (pp. 1565-1573) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-008-3400-y
  8. Golub et al. (1992) The role of alkaline phosphatase in cartilage mineralization https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-6009(92)90750-8
  9. Hosseinpour et al. (2017) Application of selected scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: a systematic review (pp. 109-129) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-017-0608-3
  10. Jafari et al. (2017) Polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering: a literature review (pp. 431-459) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33547
  11. Khojasteh and Motamedian (2016) Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for treatment of craniofacial bone defects: 10 years of experience (pp. 1-7)
  12. Khojasteh et al. (2015) Polymeric vs hydroxyapatite-based scaffolds on dental pulp stem cell proliferation and differentiation (pp. 1215-1221) https://doi.org/10.4252/wjsc.v7.i10.1215
  13. Kim et al. (2017) Effect of pore sizes of PLGA scaffolds on mechanical properties and cell behaviour for nucleus pulposus regeneration in vivo (pp. 44-57) https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1856
  14. Lafzi et al. (2016) In vitro effect of mineralized and demineralized bone allografts on proliferation and differentiation of MG-63 osteoblast-like cells (pp. 91-104) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-015-9516-7
  15. Malik et al. (1992) Osteoblasts on hydroxyapatite, alumina and bone surfaces in vitro; morphology during the first 2 h of attachment (pp. 123-128) https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(92)90008-C
  16. Motamedian et al. (2015) Smart scaffolds in bone tissue engineering: a systematic review of literature (pp. 657-668) https://doi.org/10.4252/wjsc.v7.i3.657
  17. Motamedian et al. (2016) Bone tissue engineering: a literature review (pp. 103-120)
  18. Motamedian et al. (2017) Response of dental pulp stem cells to synthetic, allograft, and xenograft bone scaffolds (pp. 49-59) https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.2121
  19. Pripatnanont et al. (2016) Bone regeneration potential of biphasic nanocalcium phosphate with high hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate ratios in rabbit calvarial defects (pp. 294-303) https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4531
  20. Seebach et al. (2010) Comparison of six bone-graft substitutes regarding to cell seeding efficiency, metabolism and growth behaviour of human mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) in vitro (pp. 731-738) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.02.017
  21. Tabatabaei et al. (2012) Craniomaxillofacial bone engineering by scaffolds loaded with stem cells: a systematic review (pp. 113-130)
  22. Tang et al. (2002) Osteogenesis of freeze-dried cancellous bone allograft loaded with autologous marrow-derived mesenchymal cells (pp. 57-61) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-4931(02)00013-9
  23. Truedsson et al. (2013) Maxillary sinus augmentation with iliac autograft—a health-economic analysis (pp. 1088-1093) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02515.x
  24. Wei et al. (2015) Osteoinductive and osteopromotive variability among different demineralized bone allografts (pp. 533-542) https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12118
  25. Yang et al. (2014) Osteoconductivity and biodegradation of synthetic bone substitutes with different tricalcium phosphate contents in rabbits (pp. 80-88) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32984
  26. Zhang et al. (2008) Hard tissue formation in a porous HA/TCP ceramic scaffold loaded with stromal cells derived from dental pulp and bone marrow https://doi.org/10.1089/tea.2007.0146