Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Compositions and Structural Geometries of Scaffolds Used in the Regeneration of Cleft Palates: A Review of the Literature

Reyna-Urrutia VA., González-González AM., Rosales-Ibáñez R.

Narrative Review, published in Polymers (Basel) (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
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
Narrative Review
Journal
Polymers (Basel) (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
35160534
PMCID
PMC8840587
DOI
10.3390/polym14030547
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

Cleft palate (CP) is one of the most common birth defects, presenting a multitude of negative impacts on the health of the patient. It also leads to increased mortality at all stages of life, economic costs and psychosocial effects. The embryological development of CP has been outlined thanks to the advances made in recent years due to biomolecular successions. The etiology is broad and combines certain environmental and genetic factors. Currently, all surgical interventions work off the principle of restoring the area of the fissure and aesthetics of the patient, making use of bone substitutes. These can involve biological products, such as a demineralized bone matrix, as well as natural-synthetic polymers, and can be supplemented with nutrients or growth factors. For this reason, the following review analyzes different biomaterials in which nutrients or biomolecules have been added to improve the bioactive properties of the tissue construct to regenerate new bone, taking into account the greatest limitations of this approach, which are its use for bone substitutes for large areas exclusively and the lack of vascularity. Bone tissue engineering is a promising field, since it favors the development of porous synthetic substitutes with the ability to promote rapid and extensive vascularization within their structures for the regeneration of the CP area.

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 evidence

Browse all related research

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