Periosteal Flaps Enhance Prefabricated Engineered Bone Reparative Potential

The clinical translation of bone tissue engineering for reconstructing large bone defects has not advanced without hurdles. The in vivo bioreactor (IVB) concept may therefore bridge between bone tissue engineering and reconstructive surgery by employing the patient body for prefabricating new prevascularized tissues. Ideally, IVB should minimize the need for exogenous growth factors/cells. Periosteal tissues are promising for IVB approaches to prefabricate tissue-engineered bone (TEB) flaps. However, the significance of preserving the periosteal vascular supply has not been adequately investigated. This study assessed muscle IVB with and without periosteal/pericranial grafts and flaps for prefabricating TEB flaps to reconstruct mandibular defects in sheep. The sheep (n = 14) were allocated into 4 groups: muscle IVB (M group; n(M) = 3), muscle + periosteal graft (MP group; n(MP) = 4), muscle + periosteal flap (MVP group; n(MVP) = 4), and control group (n(Control) = 3). In the first surgery, alloplastic bone blocks were implanted in the brachiocephalic muscle (M) with a periosteal graft (MP) or with a vascularized periosteal flap (MVP). After 9 wk, the prefabricated TEB flaps were transplanted to reconstruct a mandibular angle defect. In the control group, the defects were reconstructed by non-prevascularized bone blocks. Computed tomography (CT) scans were performed after 13 wk and after 23 wk at termination, followed by micro-CT (mu CT) and histological analyses. Both CT and mu CT analysis revealed enhanced new bone formation and decreased residual biomaterial volume in the MVP group compared with control and MP groups, while the M group showed less new bone formation and more residual biomaterial. The histological analysis showed that most of the newly formed bone emerged from defect edges, but larger areas of new bone islands were found in MP and MVP groups. The MVP group showed enhanced vascularization and higher biomaterial remodeling rates. The periosteal flaps boosted the reconstructive potential of the prefabricated TEB flaps. The regenerative potential of the periosteum was manifested after the transplantation into the mechanically stimulated bony defect microenvironment.Peer reviewe

Tissue Engineering in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery : From Lab to Clinics

Regenerative medicine aims at the functional restoration of tissue malfunction, damage or loss, and can be divided into three main approaches. Firstly, the cell-based therapies, where cells are administered to re-establish a tissue either directly or through paracrine functions. Secondly, the often referred to as classical tissue engineering, consisting of the combined use of cells and a bio-degradable scaffold to form tissue. Thirdly, there are material-based approaches, which have made significant advances which rely on biodegradable materials, often functionalized with cellular functions (De Jong et al. 2014). In 1993, Langer and Vacanti, determined tissue engineering as an “interdisciplinary field that applies the principles of engineering and the life sciences toward the development of biological substitutes that restore, maintain, or improve tissue function”. They published this definition in Science in 1993. Tissue engineering has been classically thought to consist of three elements: supporting scaffold, cells and regulating factors such as growth factors (Fig. 1). Depending on the tissue to be regenerated, all three vary. Currently, it is known, that many other factors may have an effect on the outcome of the regenerate. These include factors enabling angiogenesis, physical stimulation, culture media, gene delivery and methods to deliver patient specific implants (PSI) (Fig. 2). During the past two decades, major obstacles have been tackled and tissue engineering is currently being used clinically in some applications while in others it is just taking its first baby steps.Peer reviewe