3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering
Turnbull G., Clarke J., Picard F., Riches P., Jia L., Han F.
Narrative Review, published in Bioact Mater (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Bioact Mater (2018)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 29744467
- PMCID
- PMC5935790
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.10.001
- Citations
- 668
Abstract (original English)
Bone is the second most commonly transplanted tissue worldwide, with over four million operations using bone grafts or bone substitute materials annually to treat bone defects. However, significant limitations affect current treatment options and clinical demand for bone grafts continues to rise due to conditions such as trauma, cancer, infection and arthritis. Developing bioactive three-dimensional (3D) scaffolds to support bone regeneration has therefore become a key area of focus within bone tissue engineering (BTE). A variety of materials and manufacturing methods including 3D printing have been used to create novel alternatives to traditional bone grafts. However, individual groups of materials including polymers, ceramics and hydrogels have been unable to fully replicate the properties of bone when used alone. Favourable material properties can be combined and bioactivity improved when groups of materials are used together in composite 3D scaffolds. This review will therefore consider the ideal properties of bioactive composite 3D scaffolds and examine recent use of polymers, hydrogels, metals, ceramics and bio-glasses in BTE. Scaffold fabrication methodology, mechanical performance, biocompatibility, bioactivity, and potential clinical translations will be discussed.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.