Bone tissue engineering in a critical size defect compared to ectopic implantations in the goat

Moyo C. Kruyt, Wouter J.A. Dhert, Huipin Yuan, C.E. Wilson, Clemens van Blitterswijk, Abraham J. Verbout, Joost Dick de Bruijn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

122 Citations (Scopus)
1 Downloads (Pure)


Since the application of the autologous bone graft, the need for an alternative has been recognized. Tissue engineering (TE) of bone by combining bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) with a porous scaffold, is considered a promising technique. In this study we investigated the potential of tissue engineered bone to heal a critical sized defect in the goat. Orthotopic bone formation was compared to ectopic bone formation in comparable constructs. TE constructs were prepared from goat BMSCs and porous biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic scaffolds. These constructs and scaffolds without cells were implanted paired in critical sized iliac wing defects. Comparable samples were implanted intramuscularly. After 9 (n=7) and 12 (n=8) weeks implantation, the samples were analyzed histomorphometrically. After 9-weeks implantation in the iliac wing defect, significantly more bone apposition was found in the TE condition. After 12 weeks, the defects were almost completely filled with bone, but no significant advantage of TE was determined anymore. This contrasted with the intramuscular samples where TE implants showed significantly more bone at both time points. In conclusion, bone TE is feasible in critical sized defects. However, when appropriate osteoconductive/inductive materials are applied the effect of cell seeding may be temporary.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)544-551
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of orthopaedic research
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2004


  • Tissue Engineering
  • Orthotopic
  • METIS-237056
  • IR-76358
  • Cells
  • Bone
  • Goat
  • Ectopic


Dive into the research topics of 'Bone tissue engineering in a critical size defect compared to ectopic implantations in the goat'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this