Comparative efficacy of chitosan and calcium carbonate-based scaffolds for bone regeneration in preclinical in vivo models: a systematic review
Marampa WR., Febrida R., Djustiana N.
Systematic Review, published in Saudi Dent J (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Saudi Dent J (2026)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 42223526
- PMCID
- PMC13226756
- DOI
- 10.1007/s44445-026-00187-3
Abstract (original English)
Purpose To investigate the efficacy of chitosan and calcium carbonate (CaCO₃)-based scaffolds in promoting bone regeneration in preclinical in vivo models, focusing on bone volume, mineral density, histological outcomes, and biomechanical properties. Methods This systematic review adheres to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies published from March 2015 to March 2025 using keywords such as "chitosan," "calcium carbonate," "bone regeneration," and "scaffolds." Eligible studies involved preclinical in vivo research on bone defect repair with chitosan or calcium carbonate scaffolds. Studies were included if they compared these scaffolds with other bone regeneration materials or no intervention. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the SYRCLE Risk of Bias tool. Results Thirty preclinical in vivo studies involving 850 animals were included. Chitosan scaffolds showed new bone formation ranging from 40% to 85%, while calcium carbonate scaffolds showed regeneration rates between 50% and 70%. Significant improvements in bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume-to-total volume ratio (BV/TV), and trabecular thickness were observed in scaffold-treated groups. Histological findings indicated increased osteoblast activity, mineralization, and vascularization, especially in chitos
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.