Bone Repair and Regenerative Biomaterials: Towards Recapitulating the Microenvironment
Aslankoohi N., Mondal D., Rizkalla AS., Mequanint K.
Narrative Review, published in Polymers (Basel) (2019) — 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
- Polymers (Basel) (2019)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31480693
- PMCID
- PMC6780693
- DOI
- 10.3390/polym11091437
- Citations
- 39
Abstract (original English)
Biomaterials and tissue engineering scaffolds play a central role to repair bone defects. Although ceramic derivatives have been historically used to repair bone, hybrid materials have emerged as viable alternatives. The rationale for hybrid bone biomaterials is to recapitulate the native bone composition to which these materials are intended to replace. In addition to the mechanical and dimensional stability, bone repair scaffolds are needed to provide suitable microenvironments for cells. Therefore, scaffolds serve more than a mere structural template suggesting a need for better and interactive biomaterials. In this review article, we aim to provide a summary of the current materials used in bone tissue engineering. Due to the ever-increasing scientific publications on this topic, this review cannot be exhaustive; however, we attempted to provide readers with the latest advance without being redundant. Furthermore, every attempt is made to ensure that seminal works and significant research findings are included, with minimal bias. After a concise review of crystalline calcium phosphates and non-crystalline bioactive glasses, the remaining sections of the manuscript are focused on organic-inorganic hybrid materials.
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.