Bone defect animal models for testing efficacy of bone substitute biomaterials
Li Y., Chen SK., Li L., Qin L., Wang XL., Lai YX.
Clinical Trial, published in J Orthop Translat (2015) — 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 Orthop Translat (2015)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 30035046
- PMCID
- PMC5982383
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jot.2015.05.002
- Citations
- 246
Abstract (original English)
Large bone defects are serious complications that are most commonly caused by extensive trauma, tumour, infection, or congenital musculoskeletal disorders. If nonunion occurs, implantation for repairing bone defects with biomaterials developed as a defect filler, which can promote bone regeneration, is essential. In order to evaluate biomaterials to be developed as bone substitutes for bone defect repair, it is essential to establish clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo testing models for investigating their biocompatibility, mechanical properties, degradation, and interactional with culture medium or host tissues. The results of the in vitro experiment contribute significantly to the evaluation of direct cell response to the substitute biomaterial, and the in vivo tests constitute a step midway between in vitro tests and human clinical trials. Therefore, it is essential to develop or adopt a suitable in vivo bone defect animal model for testing bone substitutes for defect repair. This review aimed at introducing and discussing the most available and commonly used bone defect animal models for testing specific substitute biomaterials. Additionally, we reviewed surgical protocols for establishing relevant preclinical bone defect models with various animal species and the evaluation methodologies of the bone regeneration process after the implantation of bone substitute bioma
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.