ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.
Sec. Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
This article is part of the Research TopicTissue Engineering Strategies and Biomaterials in Oral and Maxillofacial Hard Tissue Injury RepairView all 12 articles
Refined In Vivo Model for Bone Regeneration: Insights into Scaffold Architecture and Porosity
Provisionally accepted- 1Clinique Universitaire de Médecine Dentaire, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
- 2Division of cariology and endodonty, University clinics of dental medicine, faculty of medicine, Universite de Geneve, Geneva, Switzerland
- 3Department of medicine, faculty of medicine, rue Michel Servet 1, 1204 Genève, Universite de Geneve, Geneva, Switzerland
- 4Oniris, INSERM, Regenerative Medicine and Skeleton - UMR 1229, Nantes Universite, Nantes, France
- 5School of Engineering HE-Arc Ingénierie, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Universite de Neuchatel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
- 6Division of Dermatology and Venereology, Hopitaux Universitaires Geneve, Geneva, Switzerland
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background The architecture of bone substitute scaffolds—particularly pore size and organization—plays a crucial role in orchestrating immune responses, osteogenesis and angiogenesis. Yet, the mechanisms linking scaffold design to the temporal dynamics of bone regeneration remain partially understood. To address this, we established a refined in vivo model that integrates histological, molecular, and immunological analyses from a single explant, enabling spatially resolved insight into the bone healing process and dynamics. Methods Using a dynamic rabbit calvarial model, we investigated 3D-printed calcium phosphate cement scaffolds designed with concomitant macroarchitectures of 250 µm and 500 µm pores within a single construct, allowing direct intra-animal comparison. The model recapitulated three vertically migrating zones of regeneration—regenerative, osteogenic, and granulation—captured at 2 and 4 weeks. Histomorphometric analyses quantified bone ingrowth, while laser microdissection enabled zone-specific transcriptomic profiling from paraffin-embedded sections previously used for (immuno-)histology. Gene expression was further validated by qPCR and complemented with immunohistochemical characterization of macrophage and neutrophil populations. Results Histological analysis revealed a consistent spatial organization of bone regeneration across conditions. After 4 weeks, scaffolds with 250 µm pores exhibited more homogeneous and advanced bone formation than those with 500 µm pores or particulate substitutes. Transcriptomic analysis identified 280–381 differentially expressed genes between microporous architectures, with over half being non-coding RNAs, suggesting an important role for post-transcriptional regulation. Enrichment analyses indicated modulation of pathways involved in immune activity, ossification, calcium signaling and autophagy. Immunohistochemistry confirmed similar inflammatory mechanisms across both macroarchitectures but revealed earlier M1-to-M2 macrophage transition and faster inflammatory resolution with the finest porous network. Conclusions This integrative in vivo model provides a robust workflow for correlating structural, cellular, and molecular dimensions of bone regeneration within the same specimen. The findings show that scaffold macroarchitecture influences both the extent and timing of immune and osteogenic processes. While scaffolds with 250 µm and 500 µm pores supported regeneration, the finer design consistently promoted more advanced tissue formation and maturation. These results underscore the key role of scaffold design in modulating bone healing and highlight this model as a platform for studying structure–function relationships in bone tissue engineering.
Keywords: Bone Regeneration, in vivo model, Osteoconduction, pore size, Scaffold architecture
Received: 15 Oct 2025; Accepted: 16 Jan 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Marger, Freudenreich, Mekki, Manoil, Marger, El Harane, Charbonnier, Charmet, Brembilla, Preynat-Seauve and Durual. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Stephane Durual
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
