Limits...
Assessment of cellular viability on calcium sulphate/hydroxyapatite injectable scaffolds.

Alfotawi R, Naudi K, Dalby MJ, Tanner KE, McMahon JD, Ayoub A - J Tissue Eng (2013)

Bottom Line: The objective of this study was to investigate the visibility of loading of two types of commercially available cements, Cerament(™) Spine Support and Cerament Bone Void Filler with mesenchymal cells and cytokines (bone morphogenetic protein) to act as a biomimetic scaffolding for future clinical application.Determination of basic biocompatibility (cell viability) using methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium and live/dead assay was carried out using MG-63 cells at various time points.Results indicated that Cerament Spine Support was more biocompatible and that sequential injection of cement and then rabbit mesenchymal stromal cells into the tissue mimics is an optimal approach for clinical applications.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Glasgow Dental Hospital & School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

ABSTRACT
Cements for maxillofacial reconstruction of jaw defects through calcification of rotated muscle have been tested. The objective of this study was to investigate the visibility of loading of two types of commercially available cements, Cerament(™) Spine Support and Cerament Bone Void Filler with mesenchymal cells and cytokines (bone morphogenetic protein) to act as a biomimetic scaffolding for future clinical application. Determination of basic biocompatibility (cell viability) using methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium and live/dead assay was carried out using MG-63 cells at various time points. Next, in order to inform potential subsequent in vivo experiments, a collagen tissue mimic was used for characterization of rabbit mesenchymal stromal cells using immunofluorescent cytoskeleton staining, and simultaneous and then sequential injection of Cerament Spine Support cement and cells into collagen gels. Results indicated that Cerament Spine Support was more biocompatible and that sequential injection of cement and then rabbit mesenchymal stromal cells into the tissue mimics is an optimal approach for clinical applications.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Biocompatibility MTT toxicity assay using MG-63 cell line; the graph shows the percentage of proliferating cells based on mitochondrial enzyme activity of the cultured MG-63 live cells seeded on both cements, Cerament Bone Void Filler and Cerament Spinal Support, at different time points. On the x-axis is the different treatments done at 24 h, 72 h and at 1 week; the y-axis shows the percentage of proliferating cells calculated in different treatments. Purple and pink bars represent the Cerament Bone Void Filler cement and Cerament Spine Support cement, respectively. The figure indicates that at 1 week of cell culture, there was no statistically significant difference between the percentage of active proliferating live cells between Cerament Bone Void Filler and Cerament Spinal support (p > 0.05), after analysis using student t-test on SPSS software (error bar = SD, n = 3).MTT: methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium; SD: standard deviation.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2 - License 3
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3927750&req=5

fig2-2041731413509645: Biocompatibility MTT toxicity assay using MG-63 cell line; the graph shows the percentage of proliferating cells based on mitochondrial enzyme activity of the cultured MG-63 live cells seeded on both cements, Cerament Bone Void Filler and Cerament Spinal Support, at different time points. On the x-axis is the different treatments done at 24 h, 72 h and at 1 week; the y-axis shows the percentage of proliferating cells calculated in different treatments. Purple and pink bars represent the Cerament Bone Void Filler cement and Cerament Spine Support cement, respectively. The figure indicates that at 1 week of cell culture, there was no statistically significant difference between the percentage of active proliferating live cells between Cerament Bone Void Filler and Cerament Spinal support (p > 0.05), after analysis using student t-test on SPSS software (error bar = SD, n = 3).MTT: methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium; SD: standard deviation.

Mentions: The percentage of viable MG-63 cells on the surface of the scaffold was similar for the two cements after the first 24 h. However, after 1 week of cell culture, the percentage of viable cells were 90.6% ± 12% and 77.0% ± 7% for Cerament Spine Support and Cerament Bone Void Filler cement, respectively. However, this difference in cell metabolism was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) when mean MTT values were compared (Figure 2).


Assessment of cellular viability on calcium sulphate/hydroxyapatite injectable scaffolds.

Alfotawi R, Naudi K, Dalby MJ, Tanner KE, McMahon JD, Ayoub A - J Tissue Eng (2013)

Biocompatibility MTT toxicity assay using MG-63 cell line; the graph shows the percentage of proliferating cells based on mitochondrial enzyme activity of the cultured MG-63 live cells seeded on both cements, Cerament Bone Void Filler and Cerament Spinal Support, at different time points. On the x-axis is the different treatments done at 24 h, 72 h and at 1 week; the y-axis shows the percentage of proliferating cells calculated in different treatments. Purple and pink bars represent the Cerament Bone Void Filler cement and Cerament Spine Support cement, respectively. The figure indicates that at 1 week of cell culture, there was no statistically significant difference between the percentage of active proliferating live cells between Cerament Bone Void Filler and Cerament Spinal support (p > 0.05), after analysis using student t-test on SPSS software (error bar = SD, n = 3).MTT: methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium; SD: standard deviation.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2 - License 3
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3927750&req=5

fig2-2041731413509645: Biocompatibility MTT toxicity assay using MG-63 cell line; the graph shows the percentage of proliferating cells based on mitochondrial enzyme activity of the cultured MG-63 live cells seeded on both cements, Cerament Bone Void Filler and Cerament Spinal Support, at different time points. On the x-axis is the different treatments done at 24 h, 72 h and at 1 week; the y-axis shows the percentage of proliferating cells calculated in different treatments. Purple and pink bars represent the Cerament Bone Void Filler cement and Cerament Spine Support cement, respectively. The figure indicates that at 1 week of cell culture, there was no statistically significant difference between the percentage of active proliferating live cells between Cerament Bone Void Filler and Cerament Spinal support (p > 0.05), after analysis using student t-test on SPSS software (error bar = SD, n = 3).MTT: methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium; SD: standard deviation.
Mentions: The percentage of viable MG-63 cells on the surface of the scaffold was similar for the two cements after the first 24 h. However, after 1 week of cell culture, the percentage of viable cells were 90.6% ± 12% and 77.0% ± 7% for Cerament Spine Support and Cerament Bone Void Filler cement, respectively. However, this difference in cell metabolism was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) when mean MTT values were compared (Figure 2).

Bottom Line: The objective of this study was to investigate the visibility of loading of two types of commercially available cements, Cerament(™) Spine Support and Cerament Bone Void Filler with mesenchymal cells and cytokines (bone morphogenetic protein) to act as a biomimetic scaffolding for future clinical application.Determination of basic biocompatibility (cell viability) using methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium and live/dead assay was carried out using MG-63 cells at various time points.Results indicated that Cerament Spine Support was more biocompatible and that sequential injection of cement and then rabbit mesenchymal stromal cells into the tissue mimics is an optimal approach for clinical applications.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Glasgow Dental Hospital & School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

ABSTRACT
Cements for maxillofacial reconstruction of jaw defects through calcification of rotated muscle have been tested. The objective of this study was to investigate the visibility of loading of two types of commercially available cements, Cerament(™) Spine Support and Cerament Bone Void Filler with mesenchymal cells and cytokines (bone morphogenetic protein) to act as a biomimetic scaffolding for future clinical application. Determination of basic biocompatibility (cell viability) using methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium and live/dead assay was carried out using MG-63 cells at various time points. Next, in order to inform potential subsequent in vivo experiments, a collagen tissue mimic was used for characterization of rabbit mesenchymal stromal cells using immunofluorescent cytoskeleton staining, and simultaneous and then sequential injection of Cerament Spine Support cement and cells into collagen gels. Results indicated that Cerament Spine Support was more biocompatible and that sequential injection of cement and then rabbit mesenchymal stromal cells into the tissue mimics is an optimal approach for clinical applications.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus