Dataset Information

Comparison of the 3D-Microstructure Between Alveolar and Iliac Bone for Enhanced Bioinspired Bone Graft Substitutes.

ABSTRACT: In oral- and maxillofacial bone augmentation surgery, non-vascularized grafts from the iliac crest demonstrate better clinical performance than alveolar bone grafts. The underlying mechanisms are not fully understood but are essential for the enhancement of bone regeneration scaffolds. Synchrotron Radiation µ-CT at a pixel size of 2.3 μm was used to characterize the gross morphology and the vascular and osteocyte lacuna porosity of patient-matched iliac crest/alveolar bone samples. The results suggest a difference in the spatial distribution of the vascular pore system. Fluid simulations reveal the permeability tensor to be more homogeneous in the iliac crest, indicating a more unidirectional fluid flow in alveolar bone. The average distance between bone mineral and the closest vessel pore boundary was found to be higher in alveolar bone. At the same time, osteocyte lacunae density is higher in alveolar bone, potentially compensating for the longer average distance between the bone mineral and vessel pores. The present study comprehensively quantified and compared the 3D microarchitecture of intraindividual human alveolar and iliac bone. The identified difference in pore network architecture may allow a bone graft from the iliac crest to exhibit higher regeneration potential due to an increased capacity to connect with the surrounding pore network of the residual bone. The results may contribute to understanding the difference in clinical performance when used as bone grafts and are essential for optimization of future scaffold materials.

SUBMITTER: Rothweiler R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9248932 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Advances in the field of stem cell technology have stimulated the development and increased use of allogenic bone grafts containing live mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), also known as cellular bone matrices (CBMs). It is estimated that CBMs comprise greater than 17% of all bone grafts and bone graft substitutes used.To critically evaluate CBMs, specifically their technical specifications, existing published data supporting their use, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, cost, potential pitfalls, and other aspects pertaining to their use.Areview of literature.A series of Ovid, Medline, and Pubmed-National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) searches were performed. Only articles in English journals or published with English language translations were included. Level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed. Specific technical information on each CBM was obtained by direct communication from the companies marketing the individual products.Five different CBMs are currently available for use in spinal fusion surgery. There is a wide variation between the products with regard to the average donor age at harvest, total cellular concentration, percentage of MSCs, shelf life, and cell viability after defrosting. Three retrospective studies evaluating CBMs and fusion have shown fusion rates ranging from 90.2% to 92.3%, and multiple industry-sponsored trials are underway. No independent studies evaluating spinal fusion rates with the use of CBMs exist. All the commercially available CBMs claim to meet the FDA criteria under Section 361, 21 CFR Part 1271, and are not undergoing FDA premarket review. The CBMs claim to provide viable MSCs and are offered at a premium cost. Numerous challenges exist in regard to MSCs' survival, function, osteoblastic potential, and cytokine production once implanted into the intended host.Cellular bone matrices may be a promising bone augmentation technology in spinal fusion surgery. Although CBMs appear to be safe for use as bone graft substitutes, their efficacy in spinal fusion surgery remains highly inconclusive. Large, nonindustry sponsored studies evaluating the efficacy of CBMs are required. Without results from such studies, surgeons must be made aware of the potential pitfalls of CBMs in spinal fusion surgery. With the currently available data, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of CBMs as bone graft substitutes in spinal fusion surgery.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the 3D-Microstructure Between Alveolar and Iliac Bone for Enhanced Bioinspired Bone Graft Substitutes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets