Figure 1.
Schematic of the experiment examining integration of tissue engineered cartilage to native cartilage.
For Group B, LOX was applied during construct formation, t = 15–28 d. For Group C, LOX was applied after forming the construct-to-native assemblies, t = 29–35 d. For Group D, LOX was applied both before and after the formation of the construct-to-native assemblies, t = 15–35 d.
Figure 2.
Gross morphology and histology of constructs/explant assemblies.
Straight from culture, most controls resembled LOX-treated samples, though gaps were seen in one-third of the controls (upper left panel). None of the LOX-treated samples displayed gaps that were grossly visible; a representative sample (Group D) is shown (upper right). Gaps in the controls were also seen after histological processing using picrosirius red (lower left) versus LOX-treated samples (lower right, Group D).
Figure 3.
Tensile mechanical data of construct/explant interface.
Significantly higher apparent stiffness (top) was seen when LOX was applied during t = 15–35 d (Group D) than controls (Group A). Significantly higher apparent strength was obtained across the integration interface when engineered cartilage was treated with LOX before being press-fitted into the native cartilage (bottom). Bars with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).
Figure 4.
Gross morphology and histology of explant/explant assemblies.
Neither control nor LOX-treated native-to-native assemblies displayed grossly visible gaps when removed from culture (top row). However, gaps can be seen after histological processing using picrosirius red in the control group, unlike the LOX-treated group (bottom).
Figure 5.
Tensile mechanical data of explant/explant interface.
No differences in apparent stiffness (top) or apparent strength (bottom) were seen when LOX was applied to native-to-native integration.