Porous titanium scaffolds with injectable hyaluronic acid–DBM gel for bone substitution in a rat critical‐sized calvarial defect model. (28th March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: van Houdt, C. I. A.; Cardoso, D. A.; van Oirschot, B. A. J. A.; Ulrich, D. J. O.; Jansen, J. A.; Leeuwenburgh, S. C. G.; van den Beucken, J. J. J. P.
• Is Part Of: Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Volume 11:Number 9(2017)
• Page Start: 2537
• Page End: 2548
• Publication Date: 2016-03-28
• Subjects: animal model -- bone regeneration -- demineralization -- hyaluronic acid -- titanium -- bone graft; Tissue engineering -- Periodicals; Regeneration (Biology) -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1002/term.2151
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1932-6254

Abstract

Abstract: Demineralized bone matrix (DBM) is an allograft bone substitute used for bone repair surgery to overcome drawbacks of autologous bone grafting, such as limited supply and donor‐site comorbidities. In view of different demineralization treatments to obtain DBM, we examined the biological performance of two differently demineralized types of DBM, i.e. by acidic treatment using hydrochloric acid (HCl) or treatment with the chelating agent ethylene diamine tetra‐acetate (EDTA). First, we evaluated the osteo‐inductive properties of both DBMs by implanting the materials subcutaneously in rats. Second, we evaluated the effects on bone formation by incorporating DBM in a hyaluronic acid (HA) gel to fill a porous titanium scaffold for use in a critical‐sized calvarial defect model in 36 male Wistar rats. These porous titanium scaffolds were implanted empty or filled with HA gel containing either DBM HCl or DBM EDTA. Ectopically implanted DBM HCl and DBM EDTA did not induce ectopic bone formation over the course of 12 weeks. For the calvarial defects, mean percentages of newly formed bone at 2 weeks were significantly higher for Ti‐Empty compared to Ti–HA + DBM HCl, but not compared to Ti–HA + DBM EDTA. Significant temporal bone formation was observed for Ti‐Empty and Ti–HA + DBM HCl, but not for Ti–HA + DBM EDTA. At 8 weeks there were no significant differences in values of bone formation between the three experimental constructs. In conclusion, these results showed that, under the current experimental conditions, neither DBM HCl nor DBM EDTA possess osteo‐inductive properties. Additionally, in combination with an HA gel loaded in a porous titanium scaffold, DBM HCl and DBM EDTA showed similar amounts of new bone formation after 8 weeks, which were lower than using the empty porous titanium scaffold. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.