Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Material-Dependent Formation and Degradation of Bone Matrix-Comparison of Two Cryogels

Weng W., Häussling V., Aspera-Werz RH., Springer F., Rinderknecht H., Braun B.

Laboratory Study on Face & Skin, published in Bioengineering (Basel) (2020) — 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
Laboratory Study
Journal
Bioengineering (Basel) (2020)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32517006
PMCID
PMC7378764
DOI
10.3390/bioengineering7020052
Citations
13

Abstract (original English)

Cryogels represent ideal carriers for bone tissue engineering. We recently described the osteogenic potential of cryogels with different protein additives, e.g., platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, these scaffolds raised concerns as different toxic substances are required for their preparation. Therefore, we developed another gelatin (GEL)-based cryogel. This study aimed to compare the two scaffolds regarding their physical characteristics and their influence on osteogenic and osteoclastic cells. Compared to the PRP scaffolds, GEL scaffolds had both larger pores and thicker walls, resulting in a lower connective density. PRP scaffolds, with crystalized calcium phosphates on the surface, were significantly stiffer but less mineralized than GEL scaffolds with hydroxyapatite incorporated within the matrix. The GEL scaffolds favored adherence and proliferation of the osteogenic SCP-1 and SaOS-2 cells. Macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) levels seemed to be induced by GEL scaffolds. Levels of other osteoblast and osteoclast markers were comparable between the two scaffolds. After 14 days, mineral content and stiffness of the cryogels were increased by SCP-1 and SaOS-2 cells, especially of PRP scaffolds. THP-1 cell-derived osteoclastic cells only reduced mineral content and stiffness of PRP cryogels. In summary, both scaffolds present powerful adva

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research