Non-coding RNA delivery for bone tissue engineering: Progress, challenges, and potential solutions
Guan S., Zhang Z., Wu J.
Narrative Review, published in iScience (2022) — 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
- iScience (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35992068
- PMCID
- PMC9385673
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104807
- Citations
- 23
Abstract (original English)
More than 20 million individuals worldwide suffer from congenital or acquired bone defects annually. The development of bone scaffold materials that simulate natural bone for bone defect repair remains challenging. Recently, ncRNA-based therapies for bone defects have attracted increasing interest because of the great potential of ncRNAs in disease treatment. Various types of ncRNAs regulate gene expression in osteogenesis-related cells via multiple mechanisms. The delivery of ncRNAs to the site of bone loss through gene vectors or scaffolds is a potential therapeutic option for bone defect repair. Therefore, this study discusses and summarizes the regulatory mechanisms of miRNAs, siRNAs, and piRNAs in osteogenic signaling and reviews the widely used current RNA delivery vectors and scaffolds for bone defect repair. Additionally, current challenges and potential solutions of delivery scaffolds for bone defect repair are proposed, with the aim of providing a theoretical basis for their future clinical applications.
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.