1000/1000
Hot
Most Recent
Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering aims to regenerate large bone defects in the craniofacial region that cannot heal spontaneously. Bone is a hard-vascularized tissue, which renews itself continuously to adapt to the mechanical and metabolic demands of the body. The craniofacial area is prone to trauma and pathologies that often result in large bone damage, thus leading to both aesthetic and functional complications for the patients. The “gold standard” for treating these large defects is autologous bone grafting, which has various drawbacks, such as the necessity for a harvesting site with sufficient bone volume, considerable morbidity and infection. Indeed, tissue engineering combining a biomaterial with the appropriate cells and molecules of interest would allow a new therapeutic approach to treat large bone defects while minimizing surgical complications.
The skeletal system is dynamic, metabolically active and functionally diverse. As well as a structural function, it has a metabolic role. It supports and protects the vital internal organs and is the site of synthesis of the hematopoietic marrow and provides sites of muscle attachment for locomotion. Bone is involved in both mineral metabolism, via calcium and phosphate homeostasis, and acid–base balance, via the buffering of hydrogen ions [1]. Moreover, it has been suggested that bone has other important endocrine functions in fertility, glucose metabolism, appetite regulation and muscle function [2][3]. The craniofacial area is prone to trauma and pathologies that often result in large bone damage, these leading to both aesthetic and functional complications for patients. Throughout life, the craniofacial area is at risk of complex injuries that require bone grafting to restore function. The etiology of such injuries may be accidental (e.g., acute trauma), congenital (e.g., birth defects or deformities), pathological (e.g., maxillofacial tumors, such as ameloblastoma, or infection) or surgical. Whenever the lesions are extensive, they cause large bone defects that cannot self-repair because they exceed the body’s natural regenerative capacity. The “gold standard” for treating these large defects is autologous bone grafting. Since the defects are extensive, harvesting of the necessary bone at the donor site can cause major morbidity, including bone deformity, as well as pain and occasionally rebound resorption. Tissue engineering has made it possible to approach these issues from another angle.
Indeed, rhFGF-2 is already used in the clinical treatment of orofacial tissues. Kitamura et al. [4] performed a double-blind randomized controlled trial with 253 patients receiving rhFGF-2 0.2%, 0.3% or 0.4% or placebo during surgical management of periodontal intrabony defects. At 36 weeks, all FGF-2-treated groups demonstrated significantly higher radiographic bone fill than the placebo group, 0.3% being the best concentration. In addition, secondary analysis in a subgroup of patients showed very low levels of FGF-2 in serum and no adverse effects were reported. Another randomized controlled trial of 30 patients showed an improvement in pocket depth reduction and more clinical attachment gain compared to control sites [5]. Application of FGF-2 for the treatment of intrabony defects has been studied in another randomized controlled trial, where various concentrations of FGF-2 were used mounted in β-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds. At 6 months, patients treated with 0.3% or 0.4% rhFGF-2 showed 71% success for the combined outcome of attachment gain of 1.5 mm and bone fill of 2.5 mm compared to 45% success in the 0.1% FGF-2 and control groups [6]. A meta-analysis of studies using recombinant human FGF-2 for the treatment of deep intrabony periodontal defects demonstrated a clinical benefit of FGF-2 in terms of bone fill [7]. A more recent meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials shows that administration of 0.4% rhFGF-2 yielded 22% higher bone fill of periodontal defects than control treatment, though this result was not statistically significant. It also indicated that the impact of the treatment was dose dependent, with higher FGF-2 concentrations producing better bone regeneration outcomes [8]. To date, however, there is still no consensus on the optimal dose or delivery scaffolding method for the use of FGF-2 in the field of bone regeneration.
Bone is a constantly evolving mineralized and vascularized connective tissue that can be repaired by simple immobilization in the case of non-displaced fractures. During major trauma, infection or cancer; however, bone loses its capacity to self-repair.
Tissue engineering is considered a therapy of the future, making it possible to clinically overcome the many limitations of current autologous graft therapies (notably, the limited quantity of tissue available and risk associated with several surgical sites on a single patient). The combination of biomaterials, cells and molecules of interest may allow great advances at the clinical level by stimulating the integration of grafts through vascularization and mineralization. The close relationship between blood vessels and bone cells has been demonstrated in studies on skeletal malformation, such as craniofacial dysmorphology.
FGF-2, by virtue of its proliferative, pro-angiogenic and pro-osteogenic properties, is one of the molecules studied in this line of research. This growth factor is a ubiquitous molecule present from the embryonic stage and throughout life and is involved in the formation of the ECM. It plays an important role in the homeostasis, repair and metabolism of bone tissue by regulating the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts, accelerating the healing of fractures and the repair of skeletal defects.
The effects of FGF-2 differ depending on the type and stage of cell differentiation. Some results appear to be contradictory but can be explained by differences in dose, mode of administration and lengths of exposure, as well as by the models used in in vitro or in vivo studies, each of which has certain biases.
It appears that high dose and/or long-term treatment inhibit bone regeneration. This could be explained by a positive effect on proliferation, which remains essential at the beginning, but must be temporary, and therefore regulated to allow subsequent osteogenic differentiation. Thus, low dose and/or short-term treatment may provide the best conditions for bone regeneration. There is a need to further explore the positive or negative effects on bone regeneration for other parameters, such as the type of culture medium used and any supplements added to boost the osteogenic effect (ascorbic acid, dexamethasone, β-GP, etc.). The way in which FGF-2 is delivered should also be considered, since it may affect bone repair, potentially leading to unwanted side effects. Moreover, the delivery mode seems to have a non-negligible impact on the stability of this cytokine, and therefore, must be carefully planned and tested before clinical use. Identifying the ideal dose and how to deliver it over a given time within a specific repair time frame remain the key challenges in this type of tissue-engineered therapy.