Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyEurope PMC

A comparative analysis of the osteogenic effects of BMP-2, FGF-2, and VEGFA in a calvarial defect model

Behr B., Sorkin M., Lehnhardt M., Renda A., Longaker MT., Quarto N.

Animal Study on Chronic Wound, published in Tissue Eng Part A (2012) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Animal Study
Journal
Tissue Eng Part A (2012)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
22195699
PMCID
PMC3338108
DOI
10.1089/ten.tea.2011.0537
Citations
48

Abstract (original English)

The utilization of growth factors for bone regeneration is a widely studied field. Since the approval of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) for therapeutic use in humans, the concept of utilizing growth factors for bone regeneration in translational medicine has become even more attractive. Despite many studies published on individual growth factors in various bone models, comparative analysis is largely lacking. The aim of our study was to compare three different proosteogenic factors under identical in vivo conditions. Thus, we tested the bone regeneration capacity of the three different growth factors BMP-2, fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) in a calvarial defect model. We demonstrated that BMP-2 and VEGFA had similar bone healing capacities, resulting in complete calvarial healing as early as week 3. FGF-2 also showed a significantly higher bone regeneration capacity; however, the healing rate was lower than with BMP-2 and VEGFA. Interestingly, these findings were paralleled by an increased angiogenic response upon healing in BMP-2- and VEGFA-treated calvarial defects as compared with FGF-2. Immunohistochemistry for proliferating and osteoprogenitor cells revealed activity at different points after surgery among the groups. In conclusion, we demonstrated an efficient bone regeneration capacity of both BMP-2 and VEGFA, whi

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
SkullAnimalsMiceFibroblast Growth Factor 2Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor AImmunohistochemistryBone RegenerationWound HealingOsteogenesisBone Morphogenetic Protein 2

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research