PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16091977

Cartilage and bone tissue engineering for reconstructive head and neck surgery.

Nicole Rotter·Andreas Haisch·Markus Bücheler
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The loss of cartilage and bone because of congential defects, trauma and after tumor resection is a major clinical problem in head and neck surgery. The most prevalent methods of tissue repair are through autologous grafting or using implants. Tissue engineering applies the principles of engineering and life sciences in order to create bioartificial cartilage and bone. Most strategies for cartilage tissue engineering are based on resorbable biomaterials as temporary scaffolds for chondrocytes or precursor cells. Clinical application of tissue-engineered cartilage for reconstructive head and neck surgery as opposed to orthopedic applications has not been well established. While in orthopedic and trauma surgery engineered constructs or autologous chondrocytes are placed in the immunoprivileged region of joints, the subcutaneous transplant site in the head and neck can lead to strong inflammatory reactions and resorption of the bioartificial cartilage. Encapsulation of the engineered cartilage and modulation of the local immune response are potential strategies to overcome these limitations. In bone tissue engineering the combination of osteoconductive matrices, osteoinductive proteins such as bone morphogenetic proteins and osteogenic progenitor cells from the bone marrow or osteoblasts from bone biopsies offer a variety of tools for bone reconstruction in the craniofacial area. The utility of each technique is site dependent. Osteoconductive approaches are limited in that they merely create a favorable environment for bone formation, but do not play an active role in the recruitment of cells to the defect. Delivery of inductive signals from a scaffold can incite cells to migrate into a defect and control the progression of bone formation. Rapid osteoid matrix production in the defect site is best accomplished by using osteoblasts or progenitor cells.

Explore related subjects

Bone and BonesCartilageCells, CulturedEar, ExternalHumansPlastic Surgery ProceduresSkullStem CellsTissue EngineeringJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nicole Rotter, Andreas Haisch, Markus Bücheler. 2004-12-10. Cartilage and bone tissue engineering for reconstructive head and neck surgery.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-004-0866-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Cytogenetic and molecular cytogenetic findings in dedifferentiated liposarcoma with neural-like whorling pattern and metaplastic bone formation.

Dedifferentiated liposarcoma is a subtype of liposarcoma characterized by juxtaposition of well-differentiated liposarcoma with a nonadipocytic sarcoma. A peculiar form of dedifferentiated liposarcoma has been described, characterized by a nonlipogenic component with a neural-like whorling pattern of growth and metaplastic bone formation. We report the cytogenetic and molecular genetic findings of this peculiar form of dedifferentiation in a retroperitoneal tumor found in a 58-year-old female. The neoplasm had typical histologic findings and a complex karyotype characterized by several numeric and structural chromosomal abnormalities, including the presence of ring and giant rod chromosomes. Molecular cytogenetic studies found high levels of amplification of the MDM2 oncogene, consistent with the amplification of the 12q14 chromosome band, a cytogenetic abnormality commonly found in these tumors. These findings indicate that, despite its unique and peculiar morphologic features, this unusual type of dedifferentiated liposarcoma shares many of the cytogenetic features and molecular genetic abnormalities found in other forms of dedifferentiation. The specific cytogenetics and molecular determinants of these peculiar morphologic findings, however, remain unknown.

Bone and Bones↗
PubMed2007

Traditional and virtual microscopy compared experimentally in a classroom setting.

The technology known as virtual microscopy is now widely available to medical students. A number of medical school histology and pathology course directors, including those at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, are exploring the question of how best to make use of this new tool. The current study compared the efficacy of teaching and testing one unit of histology, bone and cartilage, using two technologies, namely, virtual microscopy and traditional microscopy. Additionally, the study examined whether low, moderate, high moderate, or high achieving students perform more effectively in any of the learning/testing formats. In a completely randomized block design, 96 first semester, first-year medical students were grouped by previous exam quartiles then subsequently randomly assigned to one of four groups. Using identical laboratory exercises with highly comparable slides for each experimental group, half of the subjects learned the exercise with traditional microscopy and half learned with virtual microscopy. Subjects were further randomly subdivided into virtual or actual testing groups. The authors found no significant differences in test scores when they examined effects by learning group or by testing group, nor were there significant interaction effects. Student performance evaluated by previous exam quartile was significant (P < 0.001). That is, students who had scored in a particular quartile on a previous test tended to score in the same quartile on the bone and cartilage test regardless of learning or testing method. In a short opinion survey, students were polled to evaluate their experience. Student preferences for both learning and testing method varied widely.

Bone and Bones↗