Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Craniofacial Bone Defects: 10 Years of Experience

Introduction: Cell delivery in treatment of bone defects has been introduced to promote tissue healing in the recent years. However, no general consensus has been reached regarding the outcome of regenerative medicine for this purpose. The aim of this study was to review our 10 years of experience i...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Arash Khojasteh, Saeed Reza Motamedian
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2016-01-01
Series:Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/tripleR/article/view/9777
id doaj-da49687b25274b3d9865579f6101fa0c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-da49687b25274b3d9865579f6101fa0c2020-11-25T02:49:35ZengShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration2476-51632476-51712016-01-011110.22037/rrr.v1i1.97776114Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Craniofacial Bone Defects: 10 Years of ExperienceArash Khojasteh0Saeed Reza Motamedian1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranIntroduction: Cell delivery in treatment of bone defects has been introduced to promote tissue healing in the recent years. However, no general consensus has been reached regarding the outcome of regenerative medicine for this purpose. The aim of this study was to review our 10 years of experience in application of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in craniofacial bone defects. Applied Methodology: Iliac bone marrow, dental pulp and buccal fat pad were selected to harvest MSCs. Flow cytometric analysis, RT-PCR and differentiation staining including Alizarin red, Oil Red O and Toluidine blue were used to identify MSCs. Four groups of bone substitutes were used for cell delivery: synthetic scaffold [beta-tricalcium phosphate (B-TCP) and hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate (HA/TCP)], xenograft [natural bovine bone mineral (NBBM)], allograft [freeze-dried bone (FDBA), demineralized freeze dried bone] and composite [polycaprolactone/TCP (PCL-TCP), demineralized freeze-dried bone/calcium sulfate]. Rat and rabbit calvaria, dog mandible, rabbit tibia sinus and alveolar cleft defects in human were used as the study models. Histomorphometric and radiomorphological analysis were used to determine new bone formation. Outcomes: Cell-treated groups showed greater new bone formation than cell-free group in all studies. Synthetic scaffolds showed better cell attachment according to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) results. In rat calvarial model, B-TCP loaded with MSCs showed better results than scaffolds carrying platelet rich plasma (PRP). NBBM showed less promising results both in dog mandible and ectopic bone formation in the masseter muscle. FDBA block fixed over a supracrestal defect in dog mandible showed 50% less new bone formation when compared with PCL-TCP as a carrier. Conclusion: More convergence studies with similar protocols of cell cultivation, culture, seeding and delivery should be done in the field of regenerative medicine for better generalizability of results for clinical setting.http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/tripleR/article/view/9777Mesenchymal stem cellsBone regenerationTissue engineeringCraniofacial bone
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Arash Khojasteh
Saeed Reza Motamedian
spellingShingle Arash Khojasteh
Saeed Reza Motamedian
Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Craniofacial Bone Defects: 10 Years of Experience
Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration
Mesenchymal stem cells
Bone regeneration
Tissue engineering
Craniofacial bone
author_facet Arash Khojasteh
Saeed Reza Motamedian
author_sort Arash Khojasteh
title Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Craniofacial Bone Defects: 10 Years of Experience
title_short Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Craniofacial Bone Defects: 10 Years of Experience
title_full Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Craniofacial Bone Defects: 10 Years of Experience
title_fullStr Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Craniofacial Bone Defects: 10 Years of Experience
title_full_unstemmed Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Craniofacial Bone Defects: 10 Years of Experience
title_sort mesenchymal stem cell therapy for treatment of craniofacial bone defects: 10 years of experience
publisher Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
series Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration
issn 2476-5163
2476-5171
publishDate 2016-01-01
description Introduction: Cell delivery in treatment of bone defects has been introduced to promote tissue healing in the recent years. However, no general consensus has been reached regarding the outcome of regenerative medicine for this purpose. The aim of this study was to review our 10 years of experience in application of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in craniofacial bone defects. Applied Methodology: Iliac bone marrow, dental pulp and buccal fat pad were selected to harvest MSCs. Flow cytometric analysis, RT-PCR and differentiation staining including Alizarin red, Oil Red O and Toluidine blue were used to identify MSCs. Four groups of bone substitutes were used for cell delivery: synthetic scaffold [beta-tricalcium phosphate (B-TCP) and hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate (HA/TCP)], xenograft [natural bovine bone mineral (NBBM)], allograft [freeze-dried bone (FDBA), demineralized freeze dried bone] and composite [polycaprolactone/TCP (PCL-TCP), demineralized freeze-dried bone/calcium sulfate]. Rat and rabbit calvaria, dog mandible, rabbit tibia sinus and alveolar cleft defects in human were used as the study models. Histomorphometric and radiomorphological analysis were used to determine new bone formation. Outcomes: Cell-treated groups showed greater new bone formation than cell-free group in all studies. Synthetic scaffolds showed better cell attachment according to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) results. In rat calvarial model, B-TCP loaded with MSCs showed better results than scaffolds carrying platelet rich plasma (PRP). NBBM showed less promising results both in dog mandible and ectopic bone formation in the masseter muscle. FDBA block fixed over a supracrestal defect in dog mandible showed 50% less new bone formation when compared with PCL-TCP as a carrier. Conclusion: More convergence studies with similar protocols of cell cultivation, culture, seeding and delivery should be done in the field of regenerative medicine for better generalizability of results for clinical setting.
topic Mesenchymal stem cells
Bone regeneration
Tissue engineering
Craniofacial bone
url http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/tripleR/article/view/9777
work_keys_str_mv AT arashkhojasteh mesenchymalstemcelltherapyfortreatmentofcraniofacialbonedefects10yearsofexperience
AT saeedrezamotamedian mesenchymalstemcelltherapyfortreatmentofcraniofacialbonedefects10yearsofexperience
_version_ 1724742615681728512