Biomaterials for Regenerative Cranioplasty: Current State of Clinical Application and Future Challenges
He L.
Clinical Trial, published in J Funct Biomater (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
- 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
- Clinical Trial
- Journal
- J Funct Biomater (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38667541
- PMCID
- PMC11050949
- DOI
- 10.3390/jfb15040084
- Citations
- 15
Abstract (original English)
Acquired cranial defects are a prevalent condition in neurosurgery and call for cranioplasty, where the missing or defective cranium is replaced by an implant. Nevertheless, the biomaterials in current clinical applications are hardly exempt from long-term safety and comfort concerns. An appealing solution is regenerative cranioplasty, where biomaterials with/without cells and bioactive molecules are applied to induce the regeneration of the cranium and ultimately repair the cranial defects. This review examines the current state of research, development, and translational application of regenerative cranioplasty biomaterials and discusses the efforts required in future research. The first section briefly introduced the regenerative capacity of the cranium, including the spontaneous bone regeneration bioactivities and the presence of pluripotent skeletal stem cells in the cranial suture. Then, three major types of biomaterials for regenerative cranioplasty, namely the calcium phosphate/titanium (CaP/Ti) composites, mineralised collagen, and 3D-printed polycaprolactone (PCL) composites, are reviewed for their composition, material properties, and findings from clinical trials. The third part discusses perspectives on future research and development of regenerative cranioplasty biomaterials, with a considerable portion based on issues identified in clinical trials. This review ai
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.