A Critical Review on the Design, Manufacturing and Assessment of the Bone Scaffold for Large Bone Defects
Huo Y., Lu Y., Meng L., Wu J., Gong T., Zou J.
Narrative Review, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2021) — 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
- Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 34722480
- PMCID
- PMC8551667
- DOI
- 10.3389/fbioe.2021.753715
- Citations
- 19
Abstract (original English)
In recent years, bone tissue engineering has emerged as a promising solution for large bone defects. Additionally, the emergence and development of the smart metamaterial, the advanced optimization algorithm, the advanced manufacturing technique, etc. have largely changed the way how the bone scaffold is designed, manufactured and assessed. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to give an up-to-date review on the design, manufacturing and assessment of the bone scaffold for large bone defects. The following parts are thoroughly reviewed: 1) the design of the microstructure of the bone scaffold, 2) the application of the metamaterial in the design of bone scaffold, 3) the optimization of the microstructure of the bone scaffold, 4) the advanced manufacturing of the bone scaffold, 5) the techniques for assessing the performance of bone scaffolds.
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.