Biological properties of calcium phosphate biomaterials for bone repair: a review
Lu J., Yu H., Chen C.
Narrative Review, published in RSC Adv (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
- RSC Adv (2018)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35542623
- PMCID
- PMC9077253
- DOI
- 10.1039/c7ra11278e
- Citations
- 80
Abstract (original English)
Bone defects are a common disease threatening the health of many people. Calcium phosphate (CaP) is an ideal bone substitutive material that is widely used for bone repair due to its excellent biological properties including osteoinductivity, osteoconductivity and biodegradability. For this reason, investigation of these properties and the effects of various influencing factors is vital for modulating calcium phosphate during the design process to maximally satisfy clinical requirements. In this study, the latest studies on the biological properties of CaP biomaterials, including hydroxyapatite (HA), tricalcium phosphate (TCP), and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), have been summarized. Moreover, recent advances on how these properties are altered by different factors are reviewed. Considering the limited mechanical strength of CaP materials, this study also reviews CaP composites with different materials as improvement measures. Finally, perspectives regarding future developments of CaP materials are also provided.
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.