Current progress in bioactive ceramic scaffolds for bone repair and regeneration
Gao C., Deng Y., Feng P., Mao Z., Li P., Yang B.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2014) — 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
- Int J Mol Sci (2014)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 24646912
- PMCID
- PMC3975421
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijms15034714
- Citations
- 158
Abstract (original English)
Bioactive ceramics have received great attention in the past decades owing to their success in stimulating cell proliferation, differentiation and bone tissue regeneration. They can react and form chemical bonds with cells and tissues in human body. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the application of bioactive ceramics for bone repair and regeneration. The review systematically summarizes the types and characters of bioactive ceramics, the fabrication methods for nanostructure and hierarchically porous structure, typical toughness methods for ceramic scaffold and corresponding mechanisms such as fiber toughness, whisker toughness and particle toughness. Moreover, greater insights into the mechanisms of interaction between ceramics and cells are provided, as well as the development of ceramic-based composite materials. The development and challenges of bioactive ceramics are also discussed from the perspective of bone repair and regeneration.
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.