收稿日期: 2021-06-07
网络出版日期: 2021-08-25
Biocompatibility and effect on bone formation of a native acellular porcine pericardium: Results of in vitro and in vivo
Received date: 2021-06-07
Online published: 2021-08-25
目的: 体外检测作为引导性骨再生术(guided bone regeneration, GBR)屏障膜的脱细胞猪心包膜(acellular porcine pericardium,APP)的形貌特性及生物相容性。建立动物模型,检测其体内屏障软组织长入骨缺损的作用及对促成骨的影响。方法: 扫描电镜检测APP膜的超微结构。细胞增殖检测(cell counting kit-8,CCK-8)实验检测人骨髓间充质干细胞(human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell, hBMSCs)接种于APP膜后第1、3、7天细胞增殖情况;接种后第5天,通过鬼笔环肽+DAPI(4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole)对细胞骨架及细胞核进行染色,观察hBMSCs的增殖及黏附情况。体内实验建立3只比格犬、18个实验位点的牙槽嵴保存动物实验模型,随机分入APP组(拔牙窝内植入Bio-Oss®骨粉并覆盖APP膜)、BG组(拔牙窝内植入Bio-Oss®骨粉并覆盖Bio-Gide®膜)和空白组(自然愈合),术后4周和12周进行Micro-CT扫描检测各组成骨情况,脱钙后进行HE染色,组织学观察各组愈合情况。结果: 扫描电镜下APP膜具有致密及疏松双层非对称及三维多孔超微结构。体外实验证实APP膜可以促进hBMSCs的增殖及黏附,在接种后第7天APP组细胞数量显著高于BG组(P<0.05)。体内实验拔牙窝整体成骨情况:术后4周,3组新生骨比例差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后12周,APP组、BG组间新生骨比例差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但均高于空白组(P<0.05)。冠方成骨情况:术后4周,APP组及BG组膜下方成骨显著高于空白组(P<0.05),组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后12周,APP组及BG组膜下方成骨显著高于空白组(P<0.05),组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。颊侧骨嵴顶相对吸收量表明:术后4周,APP组显著低于空白组(P<0.05),BG组低于空白组,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后12周,各组颊侧骨嵴顶继续降低,APP组相对吸收量仍显著低于空白组(P<0.05),BG组低于空白组,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论: APP膜具有良好的三维结构及细胞相容性,其在GBR中起到良好屏障软组织效果的同时,能够显著促进膜下方成骨及减少颊侧牙槽嵴顶吸收,推测其具有潜在的骨诱导能力。
尤鹏越 , 刘玉华 , 王新知 , 王思雯 , 唐琳 . 脱细胞猪心包膜生物相容性及成骨性能的体内外评价[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021 , 53(4) : 776 -784 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.04.026
Objective: To examine the morphology and biocompatibility of a native acellular porcine pericardium (APP) in vitro and to evaluate its barrier function and effects on osteogenesis when used in guided bone regeneration (GBR) in vivo. Methods: First, the morphology of APP (BonanGen®) was detected using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Next, for biocompatibility test, proliferation of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hBMSCs) were determined using cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8) after being seeded 1, 3 and 7 days. Meanwhile, the cells stained with phalloidine and 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) were observed using a confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) to view the morphology of cell adhesion and pattern of cell proliferation on day 5. A 3-Beagle dog model with 18 teeth extraction sockets was used for the further research in vivo. These sites were randomly treated by 3 patterns below: filled with Bio-Oss® and coverd by APP membrane (APP group), filled with Bio-Oss® and covered by Bio-Gide® membrane (BG group) and natural healing (blank group). Micro-CT and hematoxylin-eosin (HE) were performed after 4 and 12 weeks. Results: A bilayer and three-dimensional porous ultrastructure was identified for APP through SEM. In vitro, APP facilitated proliferation and adhesion of hBMSCs, especially after 7 days (P<0.05). In vivo, for the analysis of the whole socket healing, no distinct difference of new bone ratio was found between all the three groups after 4 weeks (P>0.05), however significantly more new bone regeneration was detected in APP group and BG group in comparison to blank group after 12 weeks (P<0.05). The radio of bone formation below the membrane was significantly higher in APP group and BG group than blank group after 4 and 12 weeks (P<0.05), however, the difference between APP group and BG group was merely significant in 12 weeks (P<0.05). Besides, less resorption of buccal crest after 4 weeks and 12 weeks was observed in APP group of a significant difference compared in blank group (P<0.05). The resorption in BG group was slightly lower than blank group (P>0.05). Conclusion: APP showed considerable biocompatibility and three-dimentional structure. Performing well as a barrier membrane in the dog alveolar ridge preservation model,APP significantly promoted bone regeneration below it and reduced buccal crest resorption. On the basis of this study, APP is a potential osteoconductive and osteoinductive biomaterial.
| [1] | 赵丽萍, 胡文杰, 徐涛, 等. 罹患重度牙周病变磨牙拔牙后两种牙槽嵴保存方法的比较 [J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(3):579-585. |
| [2] | Karring T, Nyman S, Gottlow J, et al. Development of the biological concept of guided tissue regeneration-animal and human studies [J]. Periodontol 2000, 1993, 1(1):26-35. |
| [3] | Retzepi M, Donos N. Guided Bone Regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2010, 21(6):567-576. |
| [4] | Gruber R, Stadlinger B, Terheyden H. Cell-to-cell communication in guided bone regeneration: molecular and cellular mechanisms [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(9):1139-1146. |
| [5] | Caridade SG, Mano JF. Engineering membranes for bone rege-neration [J]. Tissue Eng Part A, 2017, 23(23/24):1502-1533. |
| [6] | Sheikh Z, Hamdan N, Ikeda Y, et al. Natural graft tissues and synthetic biomaterials for periodontal and alveolar bone reconstructive applications: a review [J]. Biomater Res, 2017, 9(21):1-20. |
| [7] | Badylak SF, Freytes DO, Gilbert TW. Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: structure and function [J]. Acta Biomater, 2009, 5(1):1-13. |
| [8] | Rothamel D, Benner M, Fienitz T, et al. Biodegradation pattern and tissue integration of native and cross-linked porcine collagen soft tissue augmentation matrices: an experimental study in the rat [J]. Head Face Med, 2014, 10(1):1-10. |
| [9] | Wang J, Wang L, Zhou Z, et al. Biodegradable polymer membranes applied in guided bone/tissue regeneration: a review [J]. Polymers (Basel), 2016, 8(4):115-135. |
| [10] | An YZ, Kim YK, Lim SM, et al. Physiochemical properties and resorption progress of porcine skin-derived collagen membranes: in vitro and in vivo analysis [J]. Dent Mater J, 2018, 37(2):332-340. |
| [11] | Brown BN, Badylak SF. Extracellular matrix as an inductive scaffold for functional tissue reconstruction [J]. Transl Res, 2014, 163(4):268-285. |
| [12] | Badylak SF. The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material [J]. Biomaterials, 2007, 28(25):3587-3593. |
| [13] | Shahabipour F, Banach M, Johnston TP, et al. Novel approaches toward the generation of bioscaffolds as a potential therapy in cardiovascular tissue engineering [J]. Int J Cardiol, 2017, 228:319-326. |
| [14] | Zhang J, Wang GY, Xiao YP, et al. The biomechanical behavior and host response to porcine-derived small intestine submucosa, pericardium and dermal matrix acellular grafts in a rat abdominal defect model [J]. Biomaterials, 2011, 32(29):7086-7095. |
| [15] | 闫建伟. 牙种植引导骨再生心包胶原膜的制备及理化性能研究[D]. 山东大学, 2017. |
| [16] | Gauvin R, Marinov G, Mehri Y, et al. A comparative study of bovine and porcine pericardium to highlight their potential advantages to manufacture percutaneous cardiovascular implants [J]. J Biomater Appl, 2013, 28(4):552-565. |
| [17] | Khorramirouz R, Go JL, Noble C, et al. In vivo response of acellular porcine pericardial for tissue engineered transcatheter aortic valves [J]. Sci Rep, 2019, 9(1):1094-1105. |
| [18] | Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Fienitz T, et al. Biocompatibility and biodegradation of a native porcine pericardium membrane results of in vitro and in vivo examinations [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2012, 27(1):146-154. |
| [19] | Meyer M. Processing of collagen based biomaterials and the resulting materials properties [J]. Biomed Eng Online, 2019, 18(1):24-98. |
| [20] | Song C, Li S, Zhang J, et al. Controllable fabrication of porous PLGA/PCL bilayer membrane for GTR using supercritical carbon dioxide foaming [J]. Appl Surf Sci, 2019, 472:82-92. |
| [21] | Talebi Ardakani MR, Hajizadeh F, Yadegari Z. Comparison of attachment and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts on different collagen membranes [J]. Ann Maxillofac Surg, 2018, 8(2):218-223. |
| [22] | Mendoza-Novelo B, Castellano LE, Padilla-Miranda RG, et al. The component leaching from decellularized pericardial bioscaffolds and its implication in the macrophage response [J]. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2016, 104(11):2810-2822. |
| [23] | Rajabi-Zeleti S, Jalili-Firoozinezhad S, Azarnia M, et al. The behavior of cardiac progenitor cells on macroporous pericardium-derived scaffolds [J]. Biomaterials, 2014, 35(3):970-982. |
| [24] | Megerle K, Woon C, Kraus A, et al. Flexor tendon sheath engineering using decellularized porcine pericardium [J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2016, 138(4):630e-641e. |
| [25] | Pizzicannella J, Pierdomenico SD, Piattelli A, et al. 3D human periodontal stem cells and endothelial cells promote bone development in bovine pericardium-based tissue biomaterial [J]. Materials (Basel), 2019, 12(13):2157-2172. |
| [26] | Saulacic N, Schaller B, Munoz F, et al. Recombinant human BMP9 (RhBMP9) in comparison with rhBMP2 for ridge augmentation following tooth extraction: an experimental study in the Beagle dog [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2018, 29(10):1050-1059. |
| [27] | Kim JJ, Schwarz F, Song HY, et al. Ridge preservation of extraction sockets with chronic pathology using Bio-Oss® collagen with or without collagen membrane: an experimental study in dogs [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(6):727-733. |
| [28] | Sun Y, Wang CY, Wang ZY, et al. Test in canine extraction site preservations by using mineralized collagen plug with or without membrane [J]. J Biomater Appl, 2016, 30(9):1285-1299. |
| [29] | Lozano-Carrascal N, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Gargallo-Albiol J, et al. Xenografts supplemented with pamindronate placed in postextraction sockets to avoid crestal bone resorption. Experimental study in Fox hound dogs [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2016, 27(2):149-155. |
| [30] | Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2005, 32(2):212-218. |
| [31] | Macbeth N, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Donos N, et al. Hard and soft tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation: a sys-tematic review [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(8):982-1004. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
