Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates bone regeneration in sheep models, highlighting effects of scaffold design and stem cell source.
Critical-sized bone defects in load-bearing regions remain a major clinical challenge. This study investigated how β-tricalcium phosphate (βTCP) scaffold pore size and stem cell source influence bone regeneration using a laser-sintered, plasma-treated polyether ketone (P-PEK) dual-chamber scapular bioreactor model in sheep. On the left scapula, selectively polymerised βTCP (SP-βTCP) scaffolds with two pore sizes were implanted for 16 weeks: a Large Pore design (1.875-mm unit cell; 0.93-mm pore) and a Small Pore design (1.5-mm unit cell; 0.66-mm pore). Adjacent Large Pore scaffolds were loaded with either gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) alone or GelMA encapsulating autologous adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs). On the right scapula, Large Pore scaffolds containing GelMA-encapsulated autologous or allogeneic ADSCs were implanted for 12 weeks. Bone formation was quantified by micro-computed tomography (µCT) and validated by resin-embedded histology. Small Pore scaffolds generated greater bone volume than Large Pore scaffolds. Autologous ADSC-laden scaffolds outperformed GelMA-only controls, particularly in lower bioreactors interfacing with native bone. No significant differences were detected between autologous and allogeneic ADSCs. Histology confirmed bioreactor-dependent variation, with lower bone-contacting chambers consistently producing more mineralised tissue. These findings highlight the interplay between scaffold architecture, cell source, and anatomical niche in optimising translational bone regeneration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maruf et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: