Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Poly(lactic- co -glycolic acid)-based composite bone-substitute materials

Zhao D., Zhu T., Li J., Cui L., Zhang Z., Zhuang X.

Narrative Review, published in Bioact Mater (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Bioact Mater (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32954053
PMCID
PMC7475521
DOI
10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.08.016
Citations
244

Abstract (original English)

Research and development of the ideal artificial bone-substitute materials to replace autologous and allogeneic bones for repairing bone defects is still a challenge in clinical orthopedics. Recently, poly(lactic- co -glycolic acid) (PLGA)-based artificial bone-substitute materials are attracting increasing attention as the benefit of their suitable biocompatibility, degradability, mechanical properties, and capabilities to promote bone regeneration. In this article, we comprehensively review the artificial bone-substitute materials made from PLGA or the composites of PLGA and other organic and inorganic substances, elaborate on their applications for bone regeneration with or without bioactive factors, and prospect the challenges and opportunities in clinical bone 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 evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.