Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Biodegradable Microparticles for Regenerative Medicine: A State of the Art and Trends to Clinical Application

Sherstneva AA., Demina TS., Monteiro APF., Akopova TA., Grandfils C., Ilangala AB.

Narrative Review, published in Polymers (Basel) (2022) — 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
Polymers (Basel) (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
35406187
PMCID
PMC9003224
DOI
10.3390/polym14071314
Citations
19

Abstract (original English)

Tissue engineering and cell therapy are very attractive in terms of potential applications but remain quite challenging regarding the clinical aspects. Amongst the different strategies proposed to facilitate their implementation in clinical practices, biodegradable microparticles have shown promising outcomes with several advantages and potentialities. This critical review aims to establish a survey of the most relevant materials and processing techniques to prepare these micro vehicles. Special attention will be paid to their main potential applications, considering the regulatory constraints and the relative easiness to implement their production at an industrial level to better evaluate their application in clinical practices.

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

Browse all related research

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