The Overview of Porous, Bioactive Scaffolds as Instructive Biomaterials for Tissue Regeneration and Their Clinical Translation
Lutzweiler G., Ndreu Halili A., Engin Vrana N.
Narrative Review, published in Pharmaceutics (2020) — 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
- Pharmaceutics (2020)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 32610440
- PMCID
- PMC7407612
- DOI
- 10.3390/pharmaceutics12070602
- Citations
- 132
Abstract (original English)
Porous scaffolds have been employed for decades in the biomedical field where researchers have been seeking to produce an environment which could approach one of the extracellular matrixes supporting cells in natural tissues. Such three-dimensional systems offer many degrees of freedom to modulate cell activity, ranging from the chemistry of the structure and the architectural properties such as the porosity, the pore, and interconnection size. All these features can be exploited synergistically to tailor the cell-material interactions, and further, the tissue growth within the voids of the scaffold. Herein, an overview of the materials employed to generate porous scaffolds as well as the various techniques that are used to process them is supplied. Furthermore, scaffold parameters which modulate cell behavior are identified under distinct aspects: the architecture of inert scaffolds (i.e., pore and interconnection size, porosity, mechanical properties, etc.) alone on cell functions followed by comparison with bioactive scaffolds to grasp the most relevant features driving tissue regeneration. Finally, in vivo outcomes are highlighted comparing the accordance between in vitro and in vivo results in order to tackle the future translational challenges in tissue 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.