Better models, better treatment? a systematic review of current three dimensional (3D) <i>in vitro</i> models for implant-associated infections
Brümmer N., Doll-Nikutta K., Schadzek P., Mikolai C., Kampmann A., Wirth D.
Systematic Review, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40352353
- PMCID
- PMC12061920
- DOI
- 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1569211
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Introduction Understanding the biology of implant-associated infections is essential in order to provide adequate detection, prevention and therapeutic strategies. Advanced 3D in vitro models offer valuable insights into the complex interactions between cells and bacteria in the presence of implant materials. This review aims to give a comprehensive overview of current 3D in vitro models that mimic implant-associated infections. Methods The structured literature search initially identified 258 publications, seven of which fitted the inclusion criteria. Results The included 3D models were established either to mimic the in vivo situation (organotypic model) or to investigate future implant materials. In three studies, organotypic models for dental implants were created and one study described an organotypic model containing immune cells. In the remaining three studies, biomaterials for constructing future orthopedic implants were developed and tested. All authors included specific cells and bacteria suitable for the respective implants. The dental implant models used fibroblasts and keratinocytes; the orthopedic implant models used stem cells and fibroblast-like cells; the model containing immune cells incorporated co-cultivation of fibroblasts and THP-1 derived macrophages. For bacterial challenge, most authors used Gram positive bacteria, but three studies employed Gram negati
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.