Bioengineering Composite Aerogel-Based Scaffolds That Influence Porous Microstructure, Mechanical Properties and In Vivo Regeneration for Bone Tissue Application
Souto-Lopes M., Fernandes MH., Monteiro FJ., Salgado CL.
Narrative Review, published in Materials (Basel) (2023) — 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
- Materials (Basel) (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 37374666
- PMCID
- PMC10305395
- DOI
- 10.3390/ma16124483
- Citations
- 9
Abstract (original English)
Tissue regeneration of large bone defects is still a clinical challenge. Bone tissue engineering employs biomimetic strategies to produce graft composite scaffolds that resemble the bone extracellular matrix to guide and promote osteogenic differentiation of the host precursor cells. Aerogel-based bone scaffold preparation methods have been increasingly improved to overcome the difficulties in balancing the need for an open highly porous and hierarchically organized microstructure with compression resistance to withstand bone physiological loads, especially in wet conditions. Moreover, these improved aerogel scaffolds have been implanted in vivo in critical bone defects, in order to test their bone regeneration potential. This review addresses recently published studies on aerogel composite (organic/inorganic)-based scaffolds, having in mind the various cutting-edge technologies and raw biomaterials used, as well as the improvements that are still a challenge in terms of their relevant properties. Finally, the lack of 3D in vitro models of bone tissue for regeneration studies is emphasized, as well as the need for further developments to overcome and minimize the requirement for studies using in vivo animal models.
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.