Reference Citation Analysis: Find an Article, Find a Category, Find a Journal, Find a Scholar

For:	Parmaksiz M, Elçin AE, Elçin YM. Biomimetic 3D-Bone Tissue Model. Methods Mol Biol 2021;2273:239-50. [PMID: 33604858 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1246-0_17] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]

Number	Cited by Other Article(s)
1	Decellularized vascularized bone grafts as therapeutic solution for bone reconstruction: A mechanical evaluation. PLoS One 2023;18:e0280193. [PMID: 36638107 PMCID: PMC9838862 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 12/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open Abstract INTRODUCTION Large bone defects are challenging for surgeons. Available reimplanted bone substitutes can't properly restore optimal function along and long term osteointegration of the bone graft. Bone substitute based on the perfusion-decellularization technique seem to be interesting in order to overcome these limitations. We present here an evaluation of the biomechanics of the bones thus obtained. MATERIAL AND METHODS Two decellularization protocols were chosen for this study. One using Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (SDS) (D1) and one using NaOH and H2O2 (D2). The decellularization was performed on porcine forearms. We then carried out compression, three-point bending, indentation and screw pull-out tests on each sample. Once these tests were completed, we compared the results obtained between the different decellularization protocols and with samples left native. RESULTS The difference in the means was similar between the tests performed on bones decellularized with the SDS protocol and native bones for pull-out test: +1.4% (CI95% [-10.5%- 12.4%]) of mean differences when comparing Native vs D1, compression -14.9% (CI95% [-42.7%- 12.5%]), 3-point bending -5.7% (CI95% [-22.5%- 11.1%]) and indentation -10.8% (CI95% [-19.5%- 4.6%]). Bones decellularized with the NaOH protocol showed different results from those obtained with the SDS protocol or native bones during the pull-out screw +40.7% (CI95% [24.3%- 57%]) for Native vs D2 protocol and 3-point bending tests +39.2% (CI95% [13.7%- 64.6%]) for Native vs D2 protocol. The other tests, compression and indentation, gave similar results for all our samples. CONCLUSION Vascularized decellularized grafts seem to be an interesting means for bone reconstruction. Our study shows that the decellularization method affects the mechanical results of our specimens. Some methods seem to limit these alterations and could be used in the future for bone decellularization. Collapse Key Words Collapse MESH Headings Collapse Grants Collapse Affiliation(s) Collapse

Number

Cited by Other Article(s)

Decellularized vascularized bone grafts as therapeutic solution for bone reconstruction: A mechanical evaluation. PLoS One 2023;18:e0280193. [PMID: 36638107 PMCID: PMC9838862 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 12/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Large bone defects are challenging for surgeons. Available reimplanted bone substitutes can't properly restore optimal function along and long term osteointegration of the bone graft. Bone substitute based on the perfusion-decellularization technique seem to be interesting in order to overcome these limitations. We present here an evaluation of the biomechanics of the bones thus obtained.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two decellularization protocols were chosen for this study. One using Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (SDS) (D1) and one using NaOH and H2O2 (D2). The decellularization was performed on porcine forearms. We then carried out compression, three-point bending, indentation and screw pull-out tests on each sample. Once these tests were completed, we compared the results obtained between the different decellularization protocols and with samples left native.

RESULTS

The difference in the means was similar between the tests performed on bones decellularized with the SDS protocol and native bones for pull-out test: +1.4% (CI95% [-10.5%- 12.4%]) of mean differences when comparing Native vs D1, compression -14.9% (CI95% [-42.7%- 12.5%]), 3-point bending -5.7% (CI95% [-22.5%- 11.1%]) and indentation -10.8% (CI95% [-19.5%- 4.6%]). Bones decellularized with the NaOH protocol showed different results from those obtained with the SDS protocol or native bones during the pull-out screw +40.7% (CI95% [24.3%- 57%]) for Native vs D2 protocol and 3-point bending tests +39.2% (CI95% [13.7%- 64.6%]) for Native vs D2 protocol. The other tests, compression and indentation, gave similar results for all our samples.

CONCLUSION

Vascularized decellularized grafts seem to be an interesting means for bone reconstruction. Our study shows that the decellularization method affects the mechanical results of our specimens. Some methods seem to limit these alterations and could be used in the future for bone decellularization.

Collapse