Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialEurope PMCOpen access

Bone Regeneration Using Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Biocompatible Scaffolds: A Concise Review of the Current Clinical Trials

Re F., Borsani E., Rezzani R., Sartore L., Russo D.

Clinical Trial, published in Gels (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

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
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
Clinical Trial
Journal
Gels (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37232981
PMCID
PMC10217263
DOI
10.3390/gels9050389
Citations
21

Abstract (original English)

Bone regenerative medicine is a clinical approach combining live osteoblast progenitors, such as mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), with a biocompatible scaffold that can integrate into host bone tissue and restore its structural integrity. Over the last few years, many tissue engineering strategies have been developed and thoroughly investigated; however, limited approaches have been translated to clinical application. Consequently, the development and clinical validation of regenerative approaches remain a centerpiece of investigational efforts towards the clinical translation of advanced bioengineered scaffolds. The aim of this review was to identify the latest clinical trials related to the use of scaffolds with or without MSCs to regenerate bone defects. A revision of the literature was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov from 2018 up to 2023. Nine clinical trials were analyzed according to the inclusion criteria: six presented in the literature and three reported in Clinicaltrials.gov. Data were extracted covering background trial information. Six of the clinical trials added cells to scaffolds, while three used scaffolds alone. The majority of scaffolds were composed of calcium phosphate ceramic alone, such as β-tricalcium phosphate (TCP) (two clinical trials), biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramic granules (three clinical trials), and anorganic bovine bon

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 evidence

Browse all related research

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