The repair of articular cartilage typically involves the repair of cartilage–subchondral bone tissue defects. Although various bioactive materials have been used to repair bone defects, how these bioactive materials in subchondral bone defects influence the repair of autologous cartilage transplant remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different subchondral biomaterial scaffolds on the repair of autologous cartilage transplant in a sheep model. Cylindrical cartilage–subchondral bone defects were created in the right femoral knee joint of each sheep. The subchondral bone defects were implanted with hydroxyapatite–β-tricalcium phosphate (HA–TCP), poly lactic-glycolic acid (PLGA)-HA–TCP dual-layered composite scaffolds (PLGA/HA–TCP scaffolds), or autologous bone chips. The autologous cartilage layer was placed on top of the subchondral materials. After 3 months, the effect of different subchondral scaffolds on the repair of autologous cartilage transplant was systematically studied by investigating the mechanical strength, structural integration, and histological responses. The results showed that the transplanted cartilage layer supported by HA–TCP scaffolds had better structural integration and higher mechanical strength than that supported by PLGA/HA–TCP scaffolds. Furthermore, HA–TCP-supported cartilage showed higher expression of acid mucosubstances and glycol-amino-glycan contents than that supported by PLGA/HA–TCP scaffolds. Our results suggested that the physicochemical properties, including the inherent mechanical strength and material chemistry of the scaffolds, play important roles in influencing the repair of autologous cartilage transplants. The study may provide useful information for the design and selection of proper subchondral biomaterials to support the repair of both subchondral bone and cartilage defects.
AhmedTAHinckeMTStrategies for articular cartilage lesion repair and functional restoration. Tissue Eng Part B Rev201016(3): 305–329.
2.
ToyokawaNFujiokaHKokubuTNaguraIInuiASakataRElectrospun synthetic polymer scaffold for cartilage repair without cultured cells in an animal model. Arthroscopy201026(3): 375–383.
3.
PabbruweMBKafienahWTarltonJFMistrySFoxDJHollanderAPRepair of meniscal cartilage white zone tears using a stem cell/collagen-scaffold implant. Biomaterials201031(9): 2583–2591.
4.
StenhamreHNannmarkULindahlAGatenholmPBrittbergMInfluence of pore size on the redifferentiation potential of human articular chondrocytes in poly(urethane urea) scaffolds. J Tissue Eng Regen Med20115(7): 578–588.
5.
GomollAHMadryHKnutsenGvan DijkNSeilRBrittbergMThe subchondral bone in articular cartilage repair: current problems in the surgical management. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc201018(4): 434–447.
6.
WuCChangJSynthesis and in vitro bioactivity of bredigite powders. J Biomater Appl200721(3): 251–263.
WuCZhuYChangJZhangYXiaoYBioactive inorganic-materials/alginate composite microspheres with controllable drug-delivery ability. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater201094(1): 32–43.
9.
TamaiNMyouiAHiraoMKaitoTOchiTTanakaJA new biotechnology for articular cartilage repair: subchondral implantation of a composite of interconnected porous hydroxyapatite, synthetic polymer (PLA-PEG), and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Osteoarthritis Cartilage200513(5): 405–417.
10.
HoemannCDSunJMcKeeMDChevrierARossomachaERivardGEChitosan-glycerol phosphate/blood implants elicit hyaline cartilage repair integrated with porous subchondral bone in microdrilled rabbit defects. Osteoarthritis Cartilage200715(1): 78–89.
11.
MadryHThe subchondral bone: a new frontier in articular cartilage repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc201018(4): 417–418.
12.
WuCRamaswamyYChangJWoodsJChenYZreiqatHThe effect of Zn contents on phase composition, chemical stability and cellular bioactivity in Zn-Ca-Si system ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater200887(2): 346–353.
13.
GaoYChangJSurface modification of bioactive glasses and preparation of PDLLA/bioactive glass composite films. J Biomater Appl200924(2): 119–138.
14.
WuCZhangYZhuYFriisTXiaoYStructure-property relationships of silk-modified mesoporous bioglass scaffolds. Biomaterials201031(13): 3429–3438.
15.
WuCRamaswamyYZhuYZhengRAppleyardRHowardAThe effect of mesoporous bioactive glass on the physiochemical, biological and drug-release properties of poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) films. Biomaterials200930(12): 2199–2208.
16.
WuCZhangYZhouYFanWXiaoYA comparative study of mesoporous-glass/silk and non-mesoporous-glass/silk scaffolds: physiochemistry and in vivo osteogenesis. Acta Biomater20117(5): 2229–2236.
17.
SpillerKLLaurencinSJCharltonDMaherSALowmanAMSuperporous hydrogels for cartilage repair: evaluation of the morphological and mechanical properties. Acta Biomater20084(1): 17–25.
18.
BeutnerRMichaelJSchwenzerBScharnweberDBiological nano-functionalization of titanium-based biomaterial surfaces: a flexible toolbox. J R Soc Interface20107(Suppl 1): S93–S105.
19.
MiaoXTanDMLiJXiaoYCrawfordRMechanical and biological properties of hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate scaffolds coated with poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid). Acta Biomater20084(3): 638–645.
20.
LiuQCenLYinSChenLLiuGChangJA comparative study of proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of adipose-derived stem cells on akermanite and beta-TCP ceramics. Biomaterials200829(36): 4792–4799.
21.
PerronJKNaguibHEDakaJChawlaAWilkinsRA study on the effect of degradation media on the physical and mechanical properties of porous PLGA 85/15 scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater200991(2): 876–886.
22.
YangJShiGBeiJWangSCaoYShangQFabrication and surface modification of macroporous poly(L-lactic acid) and poly(L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) (70/30) cell scaffolds for human skin fibroblast cell culture. J Biomed Mater Res200262(3): 438–446.
23.
FangWFriisTELongXXiaoYExpression of chondromodulin-1 in the temporomandibular joint condylar cartilage and disc. J Oral Pathol Med201039(4): 356–360.
24.
El-AyoubiRDeGrandpreCDiRaddoRYousefiAMLavignePDesign and dynamic culture of 3D-scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. J Biomater Appl201125(5): 429–444.
25.
26.
27.
AdamsMAThe mechanical environment of chondrocytes in articular cartilage. Biorheology200643(3–4): 537–545.
28.
GuilakFMowVCThe mechanical environment of the chondrocyte: a biphasic finite element model of cell-matrix interactions in articular cartilage. J Biomech200033(12): 1663–1673.
29.
BachrachNMValhmuWBStazzoneERatcliffeALaiWMMowVCChanges in proteoglycan synthesis of chondrocytes in articular cartilage are associated with the time-dependent changes in their mechanical environment. J Biomech199528(12): 1561–1569.
30.
GoochKJBlunkTCourterDLSieminskiALBursacPMVunjak-NovakovicGIGF-I and mechanical environment interact to modulate engineered cartilage development. Biochem Biophys Res Commun2001286(5): 909–915.
31.
DurrantLAArcherCWBenjaminMRalphsJROrganisation of the chondrocyte cytoskeleton and its response to changing mechanical conditions in organ culture. J Anat1999194(Pt 3): 343–353.
32.
Bandyopadhyay-GhoshSReaneyIMBrookIMHurrell-GillinghamKJohnsonAHattonPVIn vitro biocompatibility of fluorcanasite glass-ceramics for bone tissue repair. J Biomed Mater Res A200780(1): 175–183.
33.
CastilloMAyersRAZhangXSchowengerdtFMooreJJCombustion synthesis of porous glasses and ceramics for bone repair. Biomed Sci Instrum200137469–474.
34.
GuldbergREOestMEDupontKPeisterADeutschEKolambkarYBiologic augmentation of polymer scaffolds for bone repair. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact20077(4): 333–334.
35.
ErggeletCEndresMNeumannKMorawietzLRingeJHaberstrohKFormation of cartilage repair tissue in articular cartilage defects pretreated with microfracture and covered with cell-free polymer-based implants. J Orthop Res200927(10): 1353–1360.
36.
PufeTPetersenWTillmannBMentleinRThe splice variants VEGF121 and VEGF189 of the angiogenic peptide vascular endothelial growth factor are expressed in osteoarthritic cartilage. Arthritis Rheum200144(5): 1082–1088.
37.
PufeTLemkeAKurzBPetersenWTillmannBGrodzinskyAJMechanical overload induces VEGF in cartilage discs via hypoxia-inducible factor. Am J Pathol2004164(1): 185–192.
38.
PalmquistAOmarOMEspositoMLausmaaJThomsenPTitanium oral implants: surface characteristics, interface biology and clinical outcome. J R Soc Interface20107(Suppl 5): S515–S527.
39.
MiaoXLimGLohKHBoccacciniARPreparation and characterisation of calcium phosphate bone cement. Mater Proc Prop Perf20043319–324.
40.
VerrierSBlakerJJMaquetVHenchLLBoccacciniARPDLLA/bioglass composites for soft-tissue and hard-tissue engineering: an in vitro cell biology assessment. Biomaterials200425(15): 3013–3021.
41.
AraMWatanabeMImaiYEffect of blending calcium compounds on hydrolytic degradation of poly(DL-lactic acid-co-glycolic acid). Biomaterials200223(12): 2479–2483.
42.
PrasadamIFriisTShiWvan GennipSCrawfordRXiaoYOsteoarthritic cartilage chondrocytes alter subchondral bone osteoblast differentiation via MAPK signalling pathway involving ERK1/2. Bone201046(1): 226–235.
43.
HoDFitzgeraldMBartlettCAZdyrkoBLuzinovIADunlopSAThe effects of concentration-dependent morphology of self-assembling RADA16 nanoscaffolds on mixed retinal cultures. Nanoscale20113(3): 907–910.
44.
LinYYTanakaNOhkumaSKamiyaTKunimatsuRHuangYCThe mandibular cartilage metabolism is altered by damaged subchondral bone from traumatic impact loading. Ann Biomed Eng200937(7): 1358–1367.
45.
TabataYBiomaterial technology for tissue engineering applications. J R Soc Interface20096(Suppl 3): S311–S324.
