Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2017-04
Cell Cotransplantation Strategies for Vascularized Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical In Vivo Studies
The regenerative potential of tissue-engineered bone constructs may be enhanced by in vitro coculture and in vivo cotransplantation of vasculogenic and osteogenic (progenitor) cells. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to answer the focused question: In animal models, does cotransplantation of osteogenic and vasculogenic cells enhance bone regeneration in craniofacial defects, compared with solely osteogenic cell-seeded constructs? Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, electronic databases were searched for controlled animal studies reporting cotransplantation of endothelial cells (ECs) with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) or osteoblasts in craniofacial critical size defect (CSD) models. Twenty-two studies were included comparing outcomes of MSC/scaffold versus MSC+EC/scaffold (co)transplantation in calvarial (n = 15) or alveolar (n = 7) CSDs of small (rodents, rabbits) and large animal (minipigs, dogs) models. On average, studies presented with an unclear to high risk of bias. MSCs were derived from autologous, allogeneic, xenogeneic, or human (bone marrow, adipose tissue, periosteum) sources; in six studies, ECs were derived from MSCs by endothelial differentiation. In most studies, MSCs and ECs were cocultured in vitro (2–17 days) before implantation. Coculture enhanced MSC osteogenic differentiation and an optimal MSC:EC seeding ratio of 1:1 was identified. Alloplastic copolymer or composite scaffolds were most often used for in vivo implantation. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for histomorphometric and radiographic new bone formation (%NBF) and vessel formation in rodents' calvarial CSDs. A statistically significant benefit in favor of cotransplantation versus MSC-only transplantation for radiographic %NBF was observed in rat calvarial CSDs (weighted mean difference 7.80% [95% confidence interval: 1.39–14.21]); results for histomorphometric %NBF and vessel formation were inconclusive. Overall, heterogeneity in the meta-analyses was high (I2 > 80%). In summary, craniofacial bone regeneration is enhanced by cotransplantation of vasculogenic and osteogenic cells. Although the direction of treatment outcome is in favor of cotransplantation strategies, the magnitude of treatment effect does not seem to be of relevance, unless proven otherwise in clinical studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GötzC., WarnkeP.H., and KolkA.Current and future options of regeneration methods and reconstructive surgery of the facial skeleton. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 120, 315, 2015.
2.
FretwurstT., GadL.M., NelsonK., and SchmelzeisenR.Dentoalveolar reconstruction. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 23, 316, 2015.
3.
CorbellaS., TaschieriS., WeinsteinR., and Del FabbroM.Histomorphometric outcomes after lateral sinus floor elevation procedure: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res, 27, 1106, 2016.
4.
NkenkeE., and NeukamF.W.Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantol, 7Suppl 2, S203, 2014.
5.
Al-NawasB., and SchiegnitzE.Augmentation procedures using bone substitute materials or autogenous bone – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oral Implantol, 7, 219, 2014.
6.
MilinkovicI., and CordaroL.Are there specific indications for the different alveolar bone augmentation procedures for implant placement? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 43, 606, 2014.
7.
ShanbhagS., and ShanbhagV.Clinical applications of cell-based approaches in alveolar bone augmentation: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 17, e17, 2015.
8.
OppenheimerA.J., MesaJ., and BuchmanS.R.Current and emerging basic science concepts in bone biology: implications in craniofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg, 23, 30, 2012.
9.
ShanbhagS., PandisN., MustafaK., NyengaardJ., and StavropoulosA.Alveolar bone tissue engineering in critical-size defects of experimental animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2016 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1002/term.2198
10.
Padial-MolinaM., ValleF., LanisA., MesaF., Dohan EhrenfestD.M., WangH.-L., and Galindo-MorenoP.Clinical application of mesenchymal stem cells and novel supportive therapies for oral bone regeneration. Biomed Res Int, 2015, 16, 2015.
11.
MeijerG.J., de BruijnJ.D., KooleR., and van BlitterswijkC.A.Cell-based bone tissue engineering. PLoS Med, 4, e9, 2007.
12.
ZukP.A.Tissue engineering craniofacial defects with adult stem cells: are we ready yet? Pediatr Res, 63, 478, 2008.
13.
DawsonJ.I., KanczlerJ., TareR., KassemM., and OreffoR.O.C.Concise review: bridging the gap: bone regeneration using skeletal stem cell-based strategies – where are we now? Stem Cells, 32, 35, 2014.
14.
KanczlerJ.M., and OreffoR.O.C.Osteogenesis and angiogenesis: the potential for engineering bone. Eur Cell Mater, 15, 100, 2008.
NguyenL.H., AnnabiN., NikkhahM., BaeH., BinanL., ParkS., KangY., YangY., and KhademhosseiniA.Vascularized bone tissue engineering: approaches for potential improvement. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 18, 363, 2012.
17.
KalkaC., MasudaH., TakahashiT., Kalka-MollW.M., SilverM., KearneyM., LiT., IsnerJ.M., and AsaharaT.Transplantation of ex vivo expanded endothelial progenitor cells for therapeutic neovascularization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 97, 3422, 2000.
18.
BalajiS., KingA., CrombleholmeT.M., and KeswaniS.G.The role of endothelial progenitor cells in postnatal vasculogenesis: implications for therapeutic neovascularization and wound healing. Adv Wound Care, 2, 283, 2013.
19.
KeramarisN.C., KaptanisS., MossH.L., LoppiniM., PneumaticosS., and MaffulliN.Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in bone healing. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther, 7, 293, 2012.
20.
ChenX., AlediaA.S., GhajarC.M., GriffithC.K., PutnamA.J., HughesC.C.W., and GeorgeS.C.Prevascularization of a fibrin-based tissue construct accelerates the formation of functional anastomosis with host vasculature. Tissue Eng Part A, 15, 1363, 2009.
21.
KaiglerD., PagniG., ParkC.-H., TarleS.A., BartelR.L., and GiannobileW.V.Angiogenic and osteogenic potential of bone repair cells for craniofacial regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A, 16, 2809, 2010.
22.
LiuY., ChanJ.K., and TeohS.H.Review of vascularised bone tissue-engineering strategies with a focus on co-culture systems. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 9, 85, 2015.
23.
Mercado-PagánÁ.E., StahlA.M., ShanjaniY., and YangY.Vascularization in bone tissue engineering constructs. Ann Biomed Eng, 43, 718, 2015.
24.
RouxB.M., ChengM.H., and BreyE.M.Engineering clinically relevant volumes of vascularized bone. J Cell Mol Med, 19, 903, 2015.
25.
UngerR.E., DohleE., and KirkpatrickC.J.Improving vascularization of engineered bone through the generation of pro-angiogenic effects in co-culture systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 94, 116, 2015.
26.
PellegriniG., SeolY.J., GruberR., and GiannobileW.V.Pre-clinical models for oral and periodontal reconstructive therapies. J Dent Res, 88, 1065, 2009.
27.
StavropoulosA., SculeanA., BosshardtD.D., BuserD., and KlingeB.Pre-clinical in vivo models for the screening of bone biomaterials for oral/craniofacial indications: focus on small-animal models. Periodontol 2000 68, 55, 2015.
28.
SchmitzJ.P., and HollingerJ.O.The critical size defect as an experimental model for craniomandibulofacial nonunions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 299, 1986.
29.
VajgelA., MardasN., FariasB.C., PetrieA., CimõesR., and DonosN.A systematic review on the critical size defect model. Clin Oral Implants Res, 25, 879, 2014.
30.
MoherD., LiberatiA., TetzlaffJ., and AltmanD.G.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6, e1000097, 2009.
31.
KilkennyC., BrowneW.J., CuthillI.C., EmersonM., and AltmanD.G.Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 8, e1000412, 2010.
32.
BerglundhT., and StavropoulosA.Preclinical in vivo research in implant dentistry. Consensus of the eighth European workshop on periodontology. J Clin Periodontol, 39Suppl 1, 1, 2012.
33.
SchwarzF., IglhautG., and BeckerJ.Quality assessment of reporting of animal studies on pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. A systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines. J Clin Periodontol, 39Suppl 1, 63, 2012.
34.
HooijmansC.R., RoversM.M., de VriesR.B.M., LeenaarsM., Ritskes-HoitingaM., and LangendamM.W.SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 14, 43, 2014.
35.
YanX.-Z., YangF., JansenJ.A., de VriesR.B.M., and van den BeuckenJ.J.J.P.Cell-based approaches in periodontal regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of periodontal defect models in animal experimental work. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 21, 411, 2015.
36.
DeeksJ.J., HigginsJ.P.T., and AltmanD.G.Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: HigginsJ.P.T., and GreenS., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2008, p. 243.
37.
XingZ., XueY., DånmarkS., SchanderK., OstvoldS., ArvidsonK., HellemS., Finne-WistrandA., AlbertssonA.-C., and MustafaK.Effect of endothelial cells on bone regeneration using poly(L-lactide-co-1,5-dioxepan-2-one) scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A, 96, 349, 2011.
38.
HigginsJ.P.T., and DeeksJ.J.Selecting Studies and Collecting Data. In: HigginsJ.P.T., and GreenS., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2008, p. 151.
39.
HigginsJ.P.T., DeeksJ.J., and AltmanD.G.Special topics in statistics. In: HigginsJ.P.T., and GreenS., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2008, p. 481.
40.
RusselW.M.S., and BurchR.L.The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen & Co., 1959.
41.
KaiglerD., KrebsbachP.H., WangZ., WestE.R., HorgerK., and MooneyD.J.Transplanted endothelial cells enhance orthotopic bone regeneration. J Dent Res, 85, 633, 2006.
42.
KoobS., Torio-PadronN., StarkG.B., HannigC., StankovicZ., and FinkenzellerG.Bone formation and neovascularization mediated by mesenchymal stem cells and endothelial cells in critical-sized calvarial defects. Tissue Eng Part A, 17, 311, 2011.
43.
HeJ., DecarisM.L., and LeachJ.K.Bioceramic-mediated trophic factor secretion by mesenchymal stem cells enhances in vitro endothelial cell persistence and in vivo angiogenesis. Tissue Eng Part A, 18, 1520, 2012.
44.
GoerkeS.M., ObermeyerJ., PlahaJ., StarkG.B., and FinkenzellerG.Endothelial progenitor cells from peripheral blood support bone regeneration by provoking an angiogenic response. Microvasc Res, 98, 40, 2015.
45.
KimJ.Y., JinG.-Z., ParkI.S., KimJ.-N., ChunS.Y., ParkE.K., KimS.-Y., YooJ., KimS.-H., RhieJ.-W., and ChoD.-W.Evaluation of solid free-form fabrication-based scaffolds seeded with osteoblasts and human umbilical vein endothelial cells for use in vivo osteogenesis. Tissue Eng Part A, 16, 2229, 2010.
46.
KimK.-I., ParkS., and ImG.-I.Osteogenic differentiation and angiogenesis with cocultured adipose-derived stromal cells and bone marrow stromal cells. Biomaterials, 35, 4792, 2014.
47.
MaJ., BothS.K., JiW., YangF., PrinsH.J., HelderM.N., PanJ., CuiF.Z., JansenJ.A., and van den BeuckenJ.J.Adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells as monocultures or cocultures with human umbilical vein endothelial cells: performance in vitro and in rat cranial defects. J Biomed Mater Res A, 102, 1026, 2014.
48.
JohariB., AhmadzadehzarajabadM., AzamiM., KazemiM., SoleimaniM., KargozarS., HajighasemlouS., FarajollahiM.M., and SamadikuchaksaraeiA.Repair of rat critical size calvarial defect using osteoblast-like and umbilical vein endothelial cells seeded in gelatin/hydroxyapatite scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A, 104, 1770, 2016.
49.
LeeJ.-H., KimJ.-H., OhS.-H., KimS.-J., HahY.-S., ParkB.-W., KimD.R., RhoG.-J., MaengG.-H., JeonR.-H., LeeH.-C., KimJ.-R., KimG.-C., KimU.-K., and ByunJ.-H.Tissue-engineered bone formation using periosteal-derived cells and polydioxanone/pluronic F127 scaffold with pre-seeded adipose tissue-derived CD146 positive endothelial-like cells. Biomaterials, 32, 5033, 2011.
50.
LeeJ.H., KimS.W., KimU.K., OhS.H., June-KimS., ParkB.W., KimJ.H., HahY.S., KimD.R., RhoG.J., MaengG.H., JeonR.H., LeeH.C., KimJ.R., KimG.C., and ByunJ.H.Generation of osteogenic construct using periosteal-derived osteoblasts and polydioxanone/pluronic F127 scaffold with periosteal-derived CD146 positive endothelial-like cells. J Biomed Mater Res A, 101, 942, 2013.
51.
LeeJ.-H., HahY.-S., ChoH.-Y., KimJ.-H., OhS.-H., ParkB.-W., KangY.-H., ChoiM.-J., ShinJ.-K., RhoG.-J., JeonR.-H., LeeH.-C., KimG.-C., KimU.-K., KimJ.-R., LeeC.-I., and ByunJ.-H.Human umbilical cord blood-derived CD34-positive endothelial progenitor cells stimulate osteoblastic differentiation of cultured human periosteal-derived osteoblasts. Tissue Eng Part A, 20, 940, 2014.
52.
HeX., DziakR., YuanX., MaoK., GencoR., SwihartM., SarkarD., LiC., WangC., LuL., AndreadisS., and YangS.BMP2 genetically engineered MSCs and EPCs promote vascularized bone regeneration in rat critical-sized calvarial bone defects. PLoS One, 8, e60473, 2013.
53.
KimS.S., ParkM.S., ChoS.W., KangS.W., AhnK.M., LeeJ.H., and KimB.S.Enhanced bone formation by marrow-derived endothelial and osteogenic cell transplantation. J Biomed Mater Res A, 92, 246, 2010.
54.
CornejoA., SaharD.E., StephensonS.M., ChangS., NguyenS., GudaT., WenkeJ.C., VasquezA., MichalekJ.E., SharmaR., KrishnegowdaN.K., and WangH.T.Effect of adipose tissue-derived osteogenic and endothelial cells on bone allograft osteogenesis and vascularization in critical-sized calvarial defects. Tissue Eng Part A, 18, 1552, 2012.
55.
LiG., WangX., CaoJ., JuZ., MaD., LiuY., and ZhangJ.Coculture of peripheral blood CD34+ cell and mesenchymal stem cell sheets increase the formation of bone in calvarial critical-size defects in rabbits. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 52, 134, 2014.
56.
ShahA.R., CornejoA., GudaT., SaharD.E., StephensonS.M., ChangS., KrishnegowdaN.K., SharmaR., and WangH.T.Differentiated adipose-derived stem cell cocultures for bone regeneration in polymer scaffolds in vivo. J Craniofac Surg, 25, 1504, 2014.
57.
LiangY., WenL., ShangF., WuJ., SuiK., and DingY.Endothelial progenitors enhanced the osteogenic capacities of mesenchymal stem cells in vitro and in a rat alveolar bone defect model. Arch Oral Biol, 68, 123, 2016.
58.
WenL., WangY., WenN., YuanG., WenM., ZhangL., LiuQ., LiangY., CaiC., ChenX., and DingY.Role of endothelial progenitor cells in maintaining stemness and enhancing differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells by indirect cell-cell interaction. Stem Cells Dev, 25, 123, 2016.
59.
SathyB.N., WatsonB.M., KinardL.A., SpicerP.P., DahlinR.L., MikosA.G., and NairS.Bone tissue engineering with multilayered scaffolds-Part II: combining vascularization with bone formation in critical-sized bone defect. Tissue Eng Part A, 21, 2495, 2015.
60.
KhojastehA., FahimipourF., JafarianM., SharifiD., JahangirS., KhayyatanF., and Baghaban EslaminejadM.Bone engineering in dog mandible: coculturing mesenchymal stem cells with endothelial progenitor cells in a composite scaffold containing vascular endothelial growth factor. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2016. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.33707
61.
SterneJ.A.C., EggerM., and MoherD.Addressing reporting biases. In: HigginsJ.P.T., and GreenS., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2008, p. 297.
62.
AminiA.R., LaurencinC.T., and NukavarapuS.P.Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng, 40, 363, 2012.
63.
LiY., ChenS.-K., LiL., QinL., WangX.-L., and LaiY.-X.Bone defect animal models for testing efficacy of bone substitute biomaterials. J Orthop Translat, 3, 95, 2015.
64.
GomesP.S., and FernandesM.H.Rodent models in bone-related research: the relevance of calvarial defects in the assessment of bone regeneration strategies. Lab Anim, 45, 14, 2011.
65.
CooperG.M., MooneyM.P., GosainA.K., CampbellP.G., LoseeJ.E., and HuardJ.Testing the critical size in calvarial bone defects: revisiting the concept of a critical-size defect. Plast Reconstr Surg, 125, 1685, 2010.
66.
BaysR.A.Current concepts in bone grafting. In: IrbyW.B., and SheltonD.W., eds. Current Advances in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby, 1983, p. 109.
67.
SlotteC., LundgrenD., and SennerbyL.Bone morphology and vascularization of untreated and guided bone augmentation-treated rabbit calvaria: evaluation of an augmentation model. Clin Oral Implants Res, 16, 228, 2005.
68.
ConnP.M.Sourcebook of Models for Biomedical Research. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2008.
69.
PowerS.M., MaticD.B., and HoldsworthD.W.The effects of nonvascularized versus vascularized bone grafting on calvarial defect healing. J Craniofac Surg, 26, 290, 2015.
70.
Zigdon-GiladiH., BickT., LewinsonD., and MachteiE.E.Mesenchymal stem cells and endothelial progenitor cells stimulate bone regeneration and mineral density. J Periodontol, 85, 984, 2014.
71.
Zigdon-GiladiH., BickT., LewinsonD., and MachteiE.E.Co-transplantation of endothelial progenitor cells and mesenchymal stem cells promote neovascularization and bone regeneration. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 17, 353, 2015.
72.
StübingerS., and DardM.The rabbit as experimental model for research in implant dentistry and related tissue regeneration. J Invest Surg, 26, 266, 2013.
73.
LiuJ., LiuC., SunB., ShiC., QiaoC., KeX., LiuS., LiuX., and SunH.Differentiation of rabbit bone mesenchymal stem cells into endothelial cells in vitro and promotion of defective bone regeneration in vivo. Cell Biochem Biophys, 68, 479, 2014.
74.
PearceA.I., RichardsR.G., MilzS., SchneiderE., and PearceS.G.Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cell Mater, 13, 1, 2007.
75.
MuschlerG.F., RautV.P., PattersonT.E., WenkeJ.C., and HollingerJ.O.The design and use of animal models for translational research in bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 16, 123, 2010.
76.
AerssensJ., BoonenS., LowetG., and DequekerJ.Interspecies differences in bone composition, density, and quality: potential implications for in vivo bone research 1. Endocrinology, 139, 663, 1998.
77.
MardasN., DerekaX., DonosN., and DardM.Experimental model for bone regeneration in oral and cranio-maxillo-facial surgery. J Invest Surg, 27, 32, 2014.
LiD.Q., LiM., LiuP.L., ZhangY.K., LuJ.X., and LiJ.M.Improved repair of bone defects with prevascularized tissue-engineered bones constructed in a perfusion bioreactor. Orthopedics, 37, 685, 2014.
80.
GarlandC.B., and PomerantzJ.H.Regenerative strategies for craniofacial disorders. Front Physiol, 3, 453, 2012.
81.
MatsuuraT., TokutomiK., SasakiM., KatafuchiM., MizumachiE., and SatoH.Distinct characteristics of mandibular bone collagen relative to long bone collagen: relevance to clinical dentistry. Biomed Res Int, 2014, 769414, 2014.
82.
YuH., VandevordP.J., GongW., WuB., SongZ., MatthewH.W., WooleyP.H., and YangS.Y.Promotion of osteogenesis in tissue-engineered bone by pre-seeding endothelial progenitor cells-derived endothelial cells. J Orthop Res, 26, 1147, 2008.
83.
YuH., VandeVordP.J., MaoL., MatthewH.W., WooleyP.H., and YangS.Y.Improved tissue-engineered bone regeneration by endothelial cell mediated vascularization. Biomaterials, 30, 508, 2009.
84.
SeebachC., HenrichD., KahlingC., WilhelmK., TamiA.E., AliniM., and MarziI.Endothelial progenitor cells and mesenchymal stem cells seeded onto beta-TCP granules enhance early vascularization and bone healing in a critical-sized bone defect in rats. Tissue Eng Part A, 16, 1961, 2010.
85.
HaoZ., FengW., HaoT., andYuB.Study on bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells derived osteoblasts and endothelial cells compound with chitosan/hydroxyapatite scaffold to construct vascularized tissue engineered bone [Chinese]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi, 26, 489, 2012.
86.
SeebachC., HenrichD., WilhelmK., BarkerJ.H., and MarziI.Endothelial progenitor cells improve directly and indirectly early vascularization of mesenchymal stem cell-driven bone regeneration in a critical bone defect in rats. Cell Transplant, 21, 1667, 2012.
87.
PangH., WuX.H., FuS.L., LuoF., ZhangZ.H., HouT.Y., LiZ.Q., ChangZ.Q., YuB., and XuJ.Z.Prevascularisation with endothelial progenitor cells improved restoration of the architectural and functional properties of newly formed bone for bone reconstruction. Int Orthop, 37, 753, 2013.
88.
LuY.M., ChengL.M., PeiG.X., CaiZ., PanL., SuJ., ZhangK.H., GuoL.L., YuQ.S., and GuoY.R.Experimental study of repairing femoral bone defects with nHA/RHLC/PLA scaffold composite with endothelial cells and osteoblasts in canines [Chinese]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi, 93, 1335, 2013.
89.
Janeczek PortalskaK., LeferinkA., GroenN., FernandesH., MoroniL., van BlitterswijkC., and de BoerJ.Endothelial differentiation of mesenchymal stromal cells. PLoS One, 7, e46842, 2012.
90.
CorreiaC., GraysonW.L., ParkM., HuttonD., ZhouB., GuoX.E., NiklasonL., SousaR.A., ReisR.L., and Vunjak-NovakovicG.In vitro model of vascularized bone: synergizing vascular development and osteogenesis. PLoS One, 6, e28352, 2011.
91.
MaJ., van den BeuckenJ.J.J.P., YangF., BothS.K., CuiF.-Z., PanJ., and JansenJ.A.Coculture of osteoblasts and endothelial cells: optimization of culture medium and cell ratio. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 17, 349, 2011.
92.
PedersenT.O., BloisA.L., XingZ., XueY., SunY., Finne-WistrandA., AkslenL.A., LorensJ.B., LeknesK.N., FristadI., and MustafaK.Endothelial microvascular networks affect gene-expression profiles and osteogenic potential of tissue-engineered constructs. Stem Cell Res Ther, 4, 52, 2013.
93.
ShihD.T.B., and BurnoufT.Preparation, quality criteria, and properties of human blood platelet lysate supplements for ex vivo stem cell expansion. N Biotechnol, 32, 199, 2015.
94.
MaJ., van den BeuckenJ.J., BothS.K., PrinsH.J., HelderM.N., YangF., and JansenJ.A.Osteogenic capacity of human BM-MSCs, AT-MSCs and their co-cultures using HUVECs in FBS and PL supplemented media. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 9, 779, 2015.
95.
BrennanM.A., DavaineJ.-M., and LayrolleP.Pre-vascularization of bone tissue-engineered constructs. Stem Cell Res Ther, 4, 96, 2013.
96.
YeattsA.B., and FisherJ.P.Bone tissue engineering bioreactors: dynamic culture and the influence of shear stress. Bone, 48, 171, 2011.
97.
GardelL.S., SerraL.A., ReisR.L., and GomesM.E.Use of perfusion bioreactors and large animal models for long bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 20, 126, 2014.
98.
SantosM.I., and ReisR.L.Vascularization in bone tissue engineering: physiology, current strategies, major hurdles and future challenges. Macromol Biosci, 10, 12, 2010.
99.
StoppatoM., StevensH.Y., CarlettiE., MigliaresiC., MottaA., and GuldbergR.E.Influence of scaffold properties on the inter-relationship between human bone marrow derived stromal cells and endothelial cells in pro-osteogenic conditions. Acta Biomater, 25, 16, 2015.
100.
GershovichJ.G., DahlinR.L., KasperF.K., and MikosA.G.Enhanced osteogenesis in cocultures with human mesenchymal stem cells and endothelial cells on polymeric microfiber scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A, 19, 2565, 2013.
101.
GardinC., BressanE., FerroniL., NalessoE., VindigniV., StelliniE., PintonP., SivolellaS., and ZavanB.In vitro concurrent endothelial and osteogenic commitment of adipose-derived stem cells and their genomical analyses through comparative genomic hybridization array: novel strategies to increase the successful engraftment of tissue-engineered bone grafts. Stem Cells Dev, 21, 767, 2011.
102.
FuchsS., DohleE., KolbeM., and KirkpatrickC.J.Outgrowth endothelial cells: sources, characteristics and potential applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol, 123, 201, 2010.
103.
SalingovaB., MadarasovaM., StejskalS., TesarovaL., SimaraP., and KoutnaI.From endothelial progenitor cells to tissue engineering: how far have we come? J Stem Cell Res Ther, 4, 3, 2014.
104.
MeadL.E., PraterD., YoderM.C., and IngramD.A.Isolation and characterization of endothelial progenitor cells from human blood. Curr Protoc Stem Cell Biol Chapter 2, Unit 2C.1, 2008.
105.
WeiH., ZhaoX., YuanR., DaiX., LiY., and LiuL.Effects of PB-EPCs on homing ability of rabbit BMSCs via endogenous SDF-1 and MCP-1. PLoS One, 10, e0145044, 2015.
106.
KampromW., KheolamaiP., U-PratyaY., SupokawejA., WattanapanitchM., LaowtammathronC., and IssaragrisilS.Effects of mesenchymal stem cell-derived cytokines on the functional properties of endothelial progenitor cells. Eur J Cell Biol, 95, 153, 2016.
107.
EmanR.M., MeijerH.A.W., OnerF.C., DhertW.J.A., and AlblasJ.Establishment of an early vascular network promotes the formation of ectopic bone. Tissue Eng Part A, 22, 253, 2016.
108.
RouwkemaJ., de BoerJ., and Van BlitterswijkC.A.Endothelial cells assemble into a 3-dimensional prevascular network in a bone tissue engineering construct. Tissue Eng, 12, 2685, 2006.
109.
ScherberichA., GalliR., JaquieryC., FarhadiJ., and MartinI.Three-dimensional perfusion culture of human adipose tissue-derived endothelial and osteoblastic progenitors generates osteogenic constructs with intrinsic vascularization capacity. Stem Cells, 25, 1823, 2007.
110.
RouwkemaJ., WesterweelP.E., de BoerJ., VerhaarM.C., and van BlitterswijkC.A.The use of endothelial progenitor cells for prevascularized bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part A, 15, 2015, 2009.
111.
MatsumotoT., KurodaR., MifuneY., KawamotoA., ShojiT., MiwaM., AsaharaT., and KurosakaM.Circulating endothelial/skeletal progenitor cells for bone regeneration and healing. Bone, 43, 434, 2008.
112.
SaharD.E., WalkerJ.A., WangH.T., StephensonS.M., ShahA.R., KrishnegowdaN.K., and WenkeJ.C.Effect of endothelial differentiated adipose-derived stem cells on vascularity and osteogenesis in poly(D,L-lactide) scaffolds in vivo. J Craniofac Surg, 23, 913, 2012.
113.
ChenardK.E., TevenC.M., HeT.-C., and ReidR.R.Bone morphogenetic proteins in craniofacial surgery: current techniques, clinical experiences, and the future of personalized stem cell therapy. J Biomed Biotechnol, 2012, 601549, 2012.
114.
SchliephakeH.Clinical efficacy of growth factors to enhance tissue repair in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 17, 247, 2015.
115.
LeeJ., and WikesjöU.M.E.Growth/differentiation factor-5: pre-clinical and clinical evaluations of periodontal regeneration and alveolar augmentation – review. J Clin Periodontol, 41, 797, 2014.
116.
CuiQ., DigheA.S., and IrvineJ.N.Combined angiogenic and osteogenic factor delivery for bone regenerative engineering. Curr Pharm Des, 19, 3374, 2013.
117.
PatelZ.S., YoungS., TabataY., JansenJ.A., WongM.E.K., and MikosA.G.Dual delivery of an angiogenic and an osteogenic growth factor for bone regeneration in a critical size defect model. Bone, 43, 931, 2008.
118.
YoungS., PatelZ.S., KretlowJ.D., MurphyM.B., MountziarisP.M., BaggettL.S., UedaH., TabataY., JansenJ.A., WongM., and MikosA.G.Dose effect of dual delivery of vascular endothelial growth factor and bone morphogenetic protein-2 on bone regeneration in a rat critical-size defect model. Tissue Eng Part A, 15, 2347, 2009.
119.
ZhangW., ZhuC., WuY., YeD., WangS., ZouD., ZhangX., KaplanD.L., and JiangX.VEGF and BMP-2 promote bone regeneration by facilitating bone marrow stem cell homing and differentiation. Eur Cell Mater, 27, 1, 2014.
120.
SulimanS., XingZ., WuX., XueY., PedersenT.O., SunY., DoskelandA.P., NickelJ., WaagT., LygreH., Finne-WistrandA., Steinmuller-NethlD., KruegerA., and MustafaK.Release and bioactivity of bone morphogenetic protein-2 are affected by scaffold binding techniques in vitro and in vivo. J Control Release, 197, 148, 2015.
121.
SulimanS., SunY., PedersenT.O., XueY., NickelJ., WaagT., Finne-WistrandA., Steinmuller-NethlD., KruegerA., CosteaD.E., and MustafaK.In vivo host response and degradation of copolymer scaffolds functionalized with nanodiamonds and bone morphogenetic protein 2. Adv Healthc Mater, 5, 730, 2016.
122.
KofronM.D., and LaurencinC.T.Bone tissue engineering by gene delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 58, 555, 2006.
123.
PengH., WrightV., UsasA., GearhartB., ShenH.-C., CumminsJ., and HuardJ.Synergistic enhancement of bone formation and healing by stem cell-expressed VEGF and bone morphogenetic protein-4. J Clin Invest, 110, 751, 2002.
124.
XiaoC., ZhouH., LiuG., ZhangP., FuY., GuP., HouH., TangT., and FanX.Bone marrow stromal cells with a combined expression of BMP-2 and VEGF-165 enhanced bone regeneration. Biomed Mater, 6, 015013, 2011.
125.
ZouD., ZhangZ., YeD., TangA., DengL., HanW., ZhaoJ., WangS., ZhangW., ZhuC., ZhouJ., HeJ., WangY., XuF., HuangY., and JiangX.Repair of critical-sized rat calvarial defects using genetically engineered bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha. Stem Cells, 29, 1380, 2011.
126.
LinC.-Y., ChangY.-H., KaoC.-Y., LuC.-H., SungL.-Y., YenT.-C., LinK.-J., and HuY.-C.Augmented healing of critical-size calvarial defects by baculovirus-engineered MSCs that persistently express growth factors. Biomaterials, 33, 3682, 2012.
127.
HooijmansC.R., IntHoutJ., Ritskes-HoitingaM., and RoversM.M.Meta-analyses of animal studies: an introduction of a valuable instrument to further improve healthcare. ILAR J, 55, 418, 2014.
128.
Florez-VargasO., BrassA., KarystianisG., BramhallM., StevensR., CruickshankS., and NenadicG.Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models. Elife, 5, e13615, 2016.
129.
MüllerR., Van CampenhoutH., Van DammeB., Van Der PerreG., DequekerJ., HildebrandT., and RüegseggerP.Morphometric analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of histological sections and micro-computed tomography. Bone, 23, 59, 1998.
130.
ThomsenJ.S., LaibA., KollerB., ProhaskaS., MosekildeL., and GowinW.Stereological measures of trabecular bone structure: comparison of 3D micro computed tomography with 2D histological sections in human proximal tibial bone biopsies. J Microsc, 218, 171, 2005.
131.
DukeP.J., DoanL., LuongH., KelleyC., LeBoeufW., DiepQ., JohnsonE., and CodyD.D.Correlation between micro-ct sections and histological sections of mouse skull defects implanted with engineered cartilage. Gravit Space Biol Bull, 22, 45, 2009.
132.
MarxR.E., and HarrellD.B.Translational research: the CD34+ cell is crucial for large-volume bone regeneration from the milieu of bone marrow progenitor cells in craniomandibular reconstruction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 29, e201, 2014.
133.
GuerreroJ., OliveiraH., CatrosS., SiadousR., DerkaouiS.-M., BareilleR., LetourneurD., and AmédéeJ.The use of total human bone marrow fraction in a direct three-dimensional expansion approach for bone tissue engineering applications: focus on angiogenesis and osteogenesis. Tissue Eng Part A, 21, 861, 2015.
134.
VesterinenH.M., SenaE.S., EganK.J., HirstT.C., ChurolovL., CurrieG.L., AntonicA., HowellsD.W., and MacleodM.R.Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods, 221, 92, 2014.
135.
SirolaK.Regeneration of defects in the calvaria. An experimental study. Ann Med Exp Biol Fenn, 38Suppl 2, 1, 1960.
136.
HussainI., MoharamzadehK., BrookI.M., José de Oliveira NetoP., and SalataL.A.Evaluation of osteoconductive and osteogenic potential of a dentin-based bone substitute using a calvarial defect model. Int J Dent, 2012, 396316, 2012.
137.
EldesoqiK., HenrichD., El-KadyA.M., ArbidM.S., Abd El-HadyB.M., MarziI., and SeebachC.Safety evaluation of a bioglass-polylactic acid composite scaffold seeded with progenitor cells in a rat skull critical-size bone defect. PLoS One, 9, e87642, 2014.
138.
EldesoqiK., HenrichD., El-KadyA.M., El-HadyB.M.A., SweifyK.M., ReljaB., NauC., MarziI., and SeebachC.Improved bone formation by differentiated mesenchymal stem cells and endothelial progenitor cells seeded on high concentrated bioglass-polylactic acid composite in calvarial rat bone defect. J Stem Cell Res Dev Ther, 2, 4, 2015.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
