Novel cell sources for bone regeneration
Li C., Mills Z., Zheng Z.
Narrative Review, published in MedComm (2020) (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
- MedComm (2020) (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 34766140
- PMCID
- PMC8491221
- DOI
- 10.1002/mco2.51
- Citations
- 11
Abstract (original English)
A plethora of both acute and chronic conditions, including traumatic, degenerative, malignant, or congenital disorders, commonly induce bone disorders often associated with severe persisting pain and limited mobility. Over 1 million surgical procedures involving bone excision, bone grafting, and fracture repair are performed each year in the U.S. alone, resulting in immense levels of public health challenges and corresponding financial burdens. Unfortunately, the innate self-healing capacity of bone is often inadequate for larger defects over a critical size. Moreover, as direct transplantation of committed osteoblasts is hindered by deficient cell availability, limited cell spreading, and poor survivability, an urgent need for novel cell sources for bone regeneration is concurrent. Thanks to the development in stem cell biology and cell reprogramming technology, many multipotent and pluripotent cells that manifest promising osteogenic potential are considered the regenerative remedy for bone defects. Considering these cells' investigation is still in its relative infancy, each of them offers their own particular challenges that must be conquered before the large-scale clinical application.
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.