Finding an easy and affordable approach to treat bone losses in neurodegenerative disease with no complications, including laborious surgeries as well as transmission of bacterial and viral diseases, is of a great importance. TE is a path to provide such approaches. The aims of this study were to differentiate endometrial stem cells to osteoblast and to measure and compare the extent of biocompatibility of PLGA/BG scaffolds prepared applying two different methods, namely electrospinning and freeze-drying as a new approach for bone reconstruction in neurodegenerative disease. The major issue, which should be addressed is the adoption of a suitable source of stem cells. Stem cells may be extracted from different origins, like adipose tissue, bone marrow, muscle, periosteum, and placenta (
26-
29). Endometrial stem cells are in fact a group of stem cells (adult stem cell), which are extracted from endometrial tissue of the uterus, which present some features similar to mesenchymal stem cells. Rehabilitation of the endometrial layer of the uterus in each menstrual cycle is due to these cells (
17,
30). Currently, mesenchymal stem cells are used in most of the studies. However, Meng et al., (2007), showed that endometrial stem cells are a suitable substitute for mesenchymal stem cells to be used in TE and cell therapy (
31). They have declared that endometrial stem cells have a high proliferation rate, maintain normal karyotype after 34 consecutive passage, are easily accessible, and more importantly, they are capable of differentiating each of the three cell layers, namely endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm (
31). Therefore, these cells were used in the present study to be differentiated to osteoblast. Mobarakeh et al., (2012), and Ebrahimi-Barough et al., (2013), reported in separate studies that endometrial stem cells are capable of differentiating to various cell lines, including neuron, fat, osteoblasts, and oligodendrocytes (
25,
32). Ai et al., (2013) have shown that when endometrial cells, which were seeded onto nancomposite Gel/HA biomimetic scaffold were placed in skull bone loss in mice, this hard tissue was efficiently reconstructed (
33). Therefore, these cells were used in this study to be differentiated to osteoblast. The results of the present study were in agreement with those reported by Azami et al., (2013), which indicated that EnSCs were successfully differentiated to osteoblast cells using osteogenic differentiation medium (
34). Therefore, EnSCsare expected to be suitable candidates for repairing bone loss and their application is more advantages compared to the other stem cells. Beside selection of the proper stem cells, choosing suitable biomaterials for making a scaffold is one of the major issues for TE (
35). The biomaterials used for this purpose should support adhesion, growth, and proliferation of the cells and should also be biocompatible and biodegradable (
36,
37). PLGA is one of the recently developed synthetic polymers and its capability to transmit growth factors and induce expression of osteoblast-specific genes have already been proven. Therefore, it is one of the practical tools in bone TE. Another material used in fabrication of this scaffold is Bioglass, which increases bioactivities, including ossification (
38). Pamula et al., (2011), who have conducted a study on PLGA/BG scaffold, have reported that the wettability property of the composite scaffold was similar to that of the PLGA. Furthermore, the destruction rate of this composite scaffold was low and the biological properties were appropriate. Therefore, it is one of the highly practical tools in bone TE (
22). The other important issue in this field is to choose a proper procedure for making the scaffold. Scaffolds used in bone TE should provide a suitable physical space to accommodate the cells within them and to induce formation of new tissues by exchanging biomolecules (
39). Scaffolds should also have a 3D and porous structure with mechanical stability (
40). One of the important points in the design of scaffolds is their similarity to extracellular matrix, with respect to morphology and structure (
41). As it has been shown in SEMimages, electrospun scaffolds with nanofiber structures are more similar to extracellular matrix and they are expected to provide more appropriate conditions for cell growth. However, the results of MTT assay have revealed that the scaffold prepared using freeze-drying method present a more suitable biocompatibility due to its high porosity, which results in providing suitable conditions for cell adhesion. Moreover, qRT-PCR results have shown that the expression level of
RUNX-2 gene, which is one of the main osteoblast-specific genes and was significantly different in two scaffolds.. This indicates the higher advantage of the scaffold prepared using freeze-drying procedure. Lu et al., (2013), stated that most of the extracellular proteins, such as collagen, have a fiber structure with nanosize in
in vivo conditions (50 - 500 nm) in diameters, which increases cell adhesion, proliferation and differentiation (
42). Nanofiber biomimetic scaffolds have biodegradable polymer nanofibers, which are made via various methods, such as electrospinning, phase-separation and self-assembly, which can imitate the nanofiber structure of the extracellular matrix (
42). Furthermore, Lu et al., (2013), stated that the freeze-drying method has been widely used within the recent two decades to make 3D porous scaffolds to be used in TE (
42). The advantages of this method include using water and ice crystals in construction of the scaffold instead of using organic solvents (
42). As it is mentioned above, this study aims at differentiating EnSCsto osteoblast followed by comparing the two methods used to construct the scaffolds. The results obtained from alkaline phosphatase, alizarin red, and ICC tests, which are shown in
Figure 3, indicated the successful differentiation of endometrial cells to osteoblast. However, in order to compare the two scaffolds, the results of MTT, SEM, DAPI, and qRT-PCR should be taken into consideration. SEM images have revealed that both scaffolds have appropriate adhesion properties of the cells. The results obtained from qRT-PCR have shown that the respective genes have been expressed in both scaffolds and that the differences between the two scaffolds are limited. However, the results of the MTT test have indicated that the biocompatibility of both scaffolds are suitable. Although, freeze-dried scaffolds has a higher biocompatibility property compared to those constructed via electrospinning, which may be attributed to its porous structure.