Volume 17, Issue 6 pp. 625-632

Clinical application of tissue-engineered transplants. Part I: mucosa

Sebastian Sauerbier

Sebastian Sauerbier

Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Ralf Gutwald

Ralf Gutwald

Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Margit Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad

Margit Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad

Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Günter Lauer

Günter Lauer

Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Carl-Gustav-Carus Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Rainer Schmelzeisen

Rainer Schmelzeisen

Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 18 September 2006
Citations: 22
Correspondence to:
Prof. Dr Dr R. Schmelzeisen
Universitätsklinik für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde
Abteilung Klinik und Poliklinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie
Hugstetter Str. 55, D-79106 Freiburg
Germany
Tel.: +49 761 270 4818
Fax: 49 761 270 4800
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objectives: The study series aims at testing the feasibility of the clinical application of tissue-engineered oral mucosa. The preliminary results were gathered over a period varying from 6 months to 12 years depending on the surgical method.

Methods: Tissue-engineered oral mucosa was used to cover defects in various surgical procedures like vestibuloplasty (n=42), freeing of the tongue (n=10), prelaminating the radial flap (n=5) and reconstruction of the urethra (n=16). In all interventions small samples of oral mucosa were harvested, cut into small pieces, resuspended in culture medium and seeded into a culture flask. Cultured keratinocytes were transferred onto membranes which then were used to cover mucosal defects in the oral cavity.

Results: To gain a graft of 15 cm2 size a mucosa biopsy of 4–8 mm2 and 40 ml autologous patients serum is needed. Tissue-engineered oral mucosa was applied successfully in all four surgical methods. Six months after transplantation a regular epithelial layering with a histological delimitation of the stratum, epithelial crest and a strong basal membrane appeared. According to the reception site the tissue engineered oral mucosa differentiated in several ways.

Conclusion: Tissue-engineered oral mucosa fulfils the requirements for clinical routine. With view to healing time and outcome it does not appear to be superior to regular harvested oral mucosa transplants. Because of a smaller harvesting defect and primary wound closure at the actual operation site the patients' convenience is increased. Thus this method reduces morbidity and advances the quality of life.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.