Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Bioactive Scaffolds as a Promising Alternative for Enhancing Critical-Size Bone Defect Regeneration in the Craniomaxillofacial Region

Bello SA., Cruz-Lebrón J., Rodríguez-Rivera OA., Nicolau E.

Narrative Review on Face & Skin, published in ACS Appl Bio Mater (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
ACS Appl Bio Mater (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37877225
PMCID
PMC13075725
DOI
10.1021/acsabm.3c00432
Citations
16

Abstract (original English)

Reconstruction of critical-size bone defects (CSDs) in the craniomaxillofacial (CMF) region remains challenging. Scaffold-based bone-engineered constructs have been proposed as an alternative to the classical treatments made with autografts and allografts. Scaffolds, a key component of engineered constructs, have been traditionally viewed as biologically passive temporary replacements of deficient bone lacking intrinsic cues to promote osteogenesis. Nowadays, scaffolds are functionalized, giving rise to bioactive scaffolds promoting bone regeneration more effectively than conventional counterparts. This review focuses on the three approaches most used to bioactivate scaffolds: (1) conferring microarchitectural designs or surface nanotopography; (2) loading bioactive molecules; and (3) seeding stem cells on scaffolds, providing relevant examples of in vivo (preclinical and clinical) studies where these methods are employed to enhance CSDs healing in the CMF region. From these, adding bioactive molecules (specifically bone morphogenetic proteins or BMPs) to scaffolds has been the most explored to bioactivate scaffolds. Nevertheless, the downsides of grafting BMP-loaded scaffolds in patients have limited its successful translation into clinics. Despite these drawbacks, scaffolds containing safer, cheaper, and more effective bioactive molecules, combined with stem cells and topogra

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 evidence
Bone and BonesHumansTissue EngineeringBone RegenerationOsteogenesisTissue Scaffolds

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research