华西口腔医学杂志

• 专栏论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

新型骨组织工程支架材料生物相容性的体内研究

李轶1 冉炜2 王改玲1 景向东1   

  1. 1.广州中医药大学第一附属医院口腔颌面外科, 广东广州510405;2.中山大学第一附属医院口腔颌面外科, 广东广州510080
  • 收稿日期:2009-08-25 修回日期:2009-08-25 出版日期:2009-08-20 发布日期:2009-08-20
  • 通讯作者: 李轶,Tel:13794418619
  • 作者简介: 李轶(1974—),男,安徽人,主治医师,硕士
  • 基金资助:

    广东省自然科学基金资助项目(990621)

Biocompatibility of new bone tissue engineering scaffolds in vivo

LI Yi1, RAN Wei2, WANG Gai-ling1, JING Xiang-dong1   

  1. 1. Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, China; 2. Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China
  • Received:2009-08-25 Revised:2009-08-25 Online:2009-08-20 Published:2009-08-20
  • Contact: LI Yi,Tel:13794418619

摘要:

目的通过比较2种新型骨组织工程支架材料即聚消旋乳酸/聚乳酸-聚乙二醇-聚乳酸/磷酸三钙(A)、聚消旋乳酸/聚乳酸-聚乙二醇-聚乳酸(B)与对照组聚消旋乳酸(C)修复兔下颌骨缺损的效果,探讨新型可吸收性生物支架材料体内埋植的生物相容性。方法24只成年新西兰大白兔按取材时间随机分为4组。双侧下颌骨下缘形成15 mm×6 mm全层骨质缺损, 每一缺损作为一个实验单位。每组内按完全随机化设计植入实验材料和对照材料。术后2、4、8、12周取材行大体标本、X线、组织学观察及计算机图像分析。结果复合支架材料A、B与聚消旋乳酸相比,复合支架B生物相容性好,同期成骨量最大;复合支架A出现明显的异物肉芽肿反应。结论新型复合支架材料B生物相容性好,效果优于聚消旋乳酸,有可能成为一种较理想的支架材料。复合支架A不适宜作为骨组织工程生物支架材料。

关键词: 骨组织工程, 支架材料, 下颌骨缺损

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the biocompatibility of new bone tissue engineering scaffolds, A:D, L-polylactic acid(PDLLA)/polylactic acid-polyethylene glycol-polylactic acid-polylactic acid(PLA-PEG-PLA)/Tricalcium phosphate and B: PDLLA/PLA -PEG -PLA in vivo, compared with PDLLA in repair of a rabbit mandibular body defect. Methods 24 New Zealand adult rabbits were divided into 4 groups randomly. 15 mm×6 mm defects were made surgically in the bilateral mandibular bodies and each hemi-mandible was assigned as an experimental unit. The defects were randomly repaired with scaffold materials in each group. Specimens obtained were evaluated with general observation, X-ray, histomorphology and computerized graphical analysis at 2, 4 , 8, 12 weeks after surgery. Results Compared with PDLLA, the new scaffold materials B showed biocompatibility. At the same time the quantity of new bone produced was much more than that in control group(P<0.05). The new scaffold materials A showed the clear chronic granulomatous inflammation. Conclusion New scaffold material B had sound biocompatibility. It was much better than PDLLA. So it may be an ideal bone tissue engineering scaffold material. A is not adapted to be used as scaffold material.

Key words: bone tissue engineering, scaffold material, mandibular defect