title: Biocompatibility and bone-repairing effects: comparison between porous poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid and nano-hydroxyapatite/poly(lactic acid) scaffolds.
abstract: Copolymer composite scaffolds and bioceramic/polymer composite scaffolds are two representative forms of composite scaffolds used for bone tissue engineering. Studies to compare biocompatibility and bone-repairing effects between these two scaffolds are significant for selecting or improving the scaffold for clinical application. We prepared two porous scaffolds comprising poly-lactic-acid/poly-glycolic-acid (PLGA) and poly-lactic-acid/nano-hydroxyapatite (nHAP/PLA) respectively, and examined their biocompatibility with human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) through evaluating adhesion, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation potentials of hMSCs in the scaffold. Then, the PLGA scaffold with hMSCs (PM construct) and the nHAP/PLA scaffold with hMSCs (HPM construct) were transplanted into the rat calvarial defect areas to compare their effects on the bone reconstruction. The results showed that the nHAP/PLA scaffold was in favor of adhesion, matrix deposition and osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs. For in vivo transplantation, both HPM and PM constructs led to mineralization and osteogenesis in the defect area of rat. However, the area grafted with PM construct showed a better formation of mature bone than that with HPM construct. In addition, the evaluation of in vitro and in vivo degradation indicated that the degradation rate of nHAP/PLA scaffold was much lower than that of PLGA scaffold. It is inferred that the lower degradation of nHAP/PLA scaffold should result in its inferior bone reconstruction in rat calvaria. Therefore, the preparation of an ideal composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering should be taken into account of the balance between its biocompatibility, degradation rate, osteoconductivity and mechanical property.
authors.forename: Chen
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Zong
authors.forename: Xiaodan
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Qian
authors.forename: Zihua
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Tang
authors.forename: Qinghong
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Hu
authors.forename: Jiarong
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Changyou
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Gao
authors.forename: Ruikang
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Tang
authors.forename: Xiangmin
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Tong
authors.forename: Jinfu
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Wang
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001861:Bone Regeneration / Q000502:physiology*; D018786:Bone Substitutes / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D017886:Durapatite / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D019344:Lactic Acid / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D008297:Male; D011091:Polyesters; D011100:Polyglycolic Acid / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D000077182:Polylactic Acid-Polyglycolic Acid Copolymer; D011108:Polymers / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D016062:Porosity; D051381:Rats; D012887:Skull Fractures / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy*; D054457:Tissue Scaffolds; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D018786:Bone Substitutes; D011091:Polyesters; D011108:Polymers; D000077182:Polylactic Acid-Polyglycolic Acid Copolymer; D011100:Polyglycolic Acid; D019344:Lactic Acid; C033616:poly(lactide); D017886:Durapatite