Аpplication of xenogeneic native bone collagen for bone repair in critical-sized rat calvarial defect model

Aim. To evaluate the efficacy of bone repair using xenogeneic native bone collagen (Bongraf COLLAGEN) as compared to other widely applied orthopaedic solutions (xenogeneic native bone mineral Geistlich Bio-Oss® and bone autograft).

Materials and Methods. We employed a conventional critical-sized (8 mm) rat calvarial defect model (48 Wistar or Sprague-Dawley rats). The artificial defect was repaired using Bongraf COLLAGEN, Geistlich Bio-Oss® utilised as a comparator, bone calvarial autograft, or remained unfilled (n = 6 per group). Rats were euthanised 4 or 12 weeks postimplantation (n = 3 per time point) with the subsequent examination (repair extent, volume, thickness and mineral density of the repaired tissue) by means of microcomputed tomography and hematoxylin and eosin staining.

Results. Expectedly, highest volume, thickness and mineral density of the repaired tissue have been observed in defects filled with autografts. Bongraf COLLAGEN and Geistlich Bio-Oss® also demonstrated a comparable and significant repair capability, yet the former option demonstrated higher bone regeneration rate.

Conclusion. Xenogeneic native bone collagen (Bongraf COLLAGEN) is comparable with xenogeneic native bone mineral (Geistlich Bio-Oss®).

1. Recent Advances in Orthopedics-2. Courney, P Maxwell. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers. 2018; 220 p.

2. GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2017; 390(10100): 1211-1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2.

3. Haagsma JA, Graetz N, Bolliger I, Naghavi M, Higashi H, Mullany EC, Abera SF, Abraham JP, Adofo K, Alsharif U, Ameh EA, Ammar W, Antonio CA, Barrero LH, Bekele T, Bose D, Brazinova A, Catalá-López F, Dandona L, Dandona R, Dargan PI, De Leo D, Degenhardt L, Derrett S, Dharmaratne SD, Driscoll TR, Duan L, Petrovich Ermakov S, Farzadfar F, Feigin VL, Franklin RC, Gabbe B, Gosselin RA, Hafezi-Nejad N, Hamadeh RR, Hijar M, Hu G, Jayaraman SP, Jiang G, Khader YS, Khan EA, Krishnaswami S, Kulkarni C, Lecky FE, Leung R, Lunevicius R, Lyons RA, Majdan M, Mason-Jones AJ, Matzopoulos R, Meaney PA, Mekonnen W, Miller TR, Mock CN, Norman RE, Orozco R, Polinder S, Pourmalek F, Rahimi- Movaghar V, Refaat A, Rojas-Rueda D, Roy N, Schwebel DC, Shaheen A, Shahraz S, Skirbekk V, Søreide K, Soshnikov S, Stein DJ, Sykes BL, Tabb KM, Temesgen AM, Tenkorang EY, Theadom AM, Tran BX, Vasankari TJ, Vavilala MS, Vlassov VV, Woldeyohannes SM, Yip P, Yonemoto N, Younis MZ, Yu C, Murray CJ, Vos T. The global burden of injury: incidence, mortality, disability-adjusted life years and time trends from the Global Burden of Disease study 2013. Inj Prev. 2016; 22(1): 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041616.

4.

5. Mokdad AH, Forouzanfar MH, Daoud F, Mokdad AA, El Bcheraoui C, Moradi-Lakeh M, Kyu HH, Barber RM, Wagner J, Cercy K, Kravitz H, Coggeshall M, Chew A, O'Rourke KF, Steiner C, Tuffaha M, Charara R, Al-Ghamdi EA, Adi Y, Afifi RA, Alahmadi H, AlBuhairan F, Allen N, Al- Mazroa M, Al-Nehmi AA, AlRayess Z, Arora M, Azzopardi P, Barroso C, Basulaiman M, Bhutta ZA, Bonell C, Breinbauer C, Degenhardt L, Denno D, Fang J, Fatusi A, Feigl AB, Kakuma R, Karam N, Kennedy E, Khoja TA, Maalouf F, Obermeyer CM, Mattoo A, McGovern T, Memish ZA, Mensah GA, Patel V, Petroni S, Reavley N, Zertuche DR, Saeedi M, Santelli J, Sawyer SM, Ssewamala F, Taiwo K, Tantawy M, Viner RM, Waldfogel J, Zuñiga MP, Naghavi M, Wang H, Vos T, Lopez AD, Al Rabeeah AA, Patton GC, Murray CJ. Global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors for young people's health during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet. 2016; 387(10036): 2383-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00648-6.

6. Hasan A, Byambaa B, Morshed M, Cheikh MI, Shakoor RA, Mustafy T, Marei H. Advances in osteobiologic materials for bone substitutes. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2018; 12(6): 1448-1468. doi: 10.1002/term.2677.

7. Pearlin, Nayak S, Manivasagam G, Sen D. Progress of Regenerative Therapy in Orthopedics. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2018; 16(2): 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-018-0428-x.

8. Smith WR, Hudson PW, Ponce BA, Rajaram Manoharan SR. Nanotechnology in orthopedics: a clinically oriented review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1): 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1990-1.

9. Azi ML, Aprato A, Santi I, Kfuri M Jr, Masse A, Joeris A. Autologous bone graft in the treatment of posttraumatic bone defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17(1): 465. https://doi.

10. org/10.1186/s12891-016-1312-4.

11. Fillingham Y, Jacobs J. Bone grafts and their substitutes. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B (1 Suppl A): 6-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B.36350.

12. Bhatt RA, Rozental TD. Bone graft substitutes. Hand Clin. 2012; 28(4): 457-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2012.08.001.

13. Mansour A, Mezour MA, Badran Z, Tamimi F. Extracellular Matrices for Bone Regeneration: A Literature Review. Tissue Eng Part A. 2017; 23(23-24): 1436-1451. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2017.0026.

14. Wang F, Li Q, Wang Z. A comparative study of the effect of Bio-Oss® in combination with concentrated growth factors or bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in canine sinus grafting. J Oral Pathol Med. 2017; 46(7): 528-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/jop.12507.

15. Khojasteh A, Fahimipour F, Jafarian M, Sharifi D, Jahangir S, Khayyatan F, Baghaban Eslaminejad M. Bone engineering in dog mandible: Coculturing mesenchymal stem cells with en dothelialprogenitor cells in a composite scaffold containing vascular endothelial growth factor. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2017; 105(7): 1767-1777. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33707.

16. Nakano K, Murata K, Omokawa S, Akahane M, Shimizu T, Kawamura K, Kawate K, Tanaka Y. Promotion of Osteogenesis and Angiogenesis in Vascularized Tissue- Engineered Bone Using Osteogenic Matrix Cell Sheets. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016; 137(5): 1476-84. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002079.

17. Oliveira HL, Da Rosa WLO, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Carreño NLV, da Silva AF, Guim TN, Dellagostin OA, Piva E. Histological Evaluation of Bone Repair with Hydroxyapatite: A Systematic Review. Calcif Tissue Int. 2017; 101(4): 341-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-017-0294-z.

18. Boskey AL. Bone composition: relationship to bone fragility and antiosteoporotic drug effects. Bonekey Rep. 2013; 2: 447. https://doi.org/10.1038/bonekey.2013.181.

19. Clarke B. Normal bone anatomy and physiology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008; 3 Suppl 3: S131-9. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.04151206.

20. Castro-Cesena AB, Novitskaya EE, Phadke A, Varghese S, McKittrick J. Isolation of Collagen from Cortical Bovine Bone for Preparation of Porous Collagen Sponges. In: Prorok B. et al. Mechanics of Biological Systems and Materials, 2013. Vol. 5. pp. 73-78. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4427-5_11.

21. Labastida-Pólito A, Piña-Barba C, Romero-Valdovinos MG, Tello-Solís SR. Physicochemical properties of collagen shee t from bovine femur. J Appl Biomater Biomech. 2009; 7(3): 200-4.

22. Kamadjaja DB, Harijadi A, Soesilawati P, Wahyuni E, Maulidah N, Fauzi A, Rah Ayu F, Simanjuntak R, Soesanto R, Asmara D, Rizqiawan A, Agus P, Pramono C. Demineralized Freeze- Dried Bovine Cortical Bone: Its Potential for Guided Bone Regeneration Membrane. Int J Dent. 2017; 2017: 5149675. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5149675.

23. Salamanca E, Hsu CC, Huang HM, Teng NC, Lin CT, Pan YH, Chang WJ. Bone regeneration using a porcine bone substitute collagen composite in vitro and in vivo. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1): 984. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19629-y.

24. Calvo-Guirado JL, Gómez-Moreno G, Guardia J, Ortiz-Ruiz A, Piatelli A, Barone A, Martínez-González JM, Meseguer- Olmo L, López-Marí L, Dorado CB. Biological response to porcine xenograft implants: an experimental study in rabbits. Implant Dent. 2012; 21(2): 112-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3182425991.

25. Peng YY, Glattauer V, Ramshaw JA, Werkmeister JA. Evaluation of the immunogenicity and cell compatibility of avian collagen for biomedical applications. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010; 93(4): 1235-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32616.

26. Oryan A, Alidadi S, Moshiri A, Maffulli N. Bone regenerative medicine: classic options, novel strategies, and future directions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014; 9(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-9-18.

27. Lynn AK, Yannas IV, Bonfield W. Antigenicity and immunoge nicity of collagen. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004; 71(2): 343-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30096.

28. Fujioka-Kobayashi M, Schaller B, Saulacic N, Zhang Y, Miron RJ. Growth factor delivery of BMP9 using a novel natural bovine bone graft with integrated atelo-collagen type I: Biosynthesis, characterization, and cell behavior. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017; 105(2): 408-418. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35921.

29. Moon SH, Lee YJ, Rhie JW, Suh DS, Oh DY, Lee JH, Kim YJ, Kim SM, Jun YJ. Comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of porcine and bovine atelocollagen in Asian nasolabial fold correction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2015; 49(3): 147-52. https://doi.org/10.3109/2000656X.2014.964725.

30. Veremeev AV, Kutikhin AG, Nesterenko VG, Bolgarin RN. Patent RU2665962C1. Bioresorbable bioscaffold for bone repair and the approach for its preparation. In Russ.

31. Spicer PP, Kretlow JD, Young S, Jansen JA, Kasper FK, Mikos AG. Evaluation of bone regeneration using the rat critical size calvarial defect. Nat Protoc. 2012; 7(10): 1918-29. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2012.113.

32. Brydone AS, Meek D, Maclaine S. Bone grafting, orthopae dic biomaterials, and the clinical need for bone engineering . Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010; 224(12): 1329-43. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544119JEIM770.

33. O'Keefe RJ, Mao J. Bone tissue engineering and regenerat ion: from discovery to the clinic--an overview. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2011; 17(6): 389-92. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2011.0475.