Polysaccharide Based Scaffolds for Soft Tissue Engineering Applications
Tiwari S., Patil R., Bahadur P.
Narrative Review, published in Polymers (Basel) (2018) — 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
- Polymers (Basel) (2018)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 30959985
- PMCID
- PMC6401776
- DOI
- 10.3390/polym11010001
- Citations
- 70
Abstract (original English)
Soft tissue reconstructs require materials that form three-dimensional (3-D) structures supportive to cell proliferation and regenerative processes. Polysaccharides, due to their hydrophilicity, biocompatibility, biodegradability, abundance, and presence of derivatizable functional groups, are distinctive scaffold materials. Superior mechanical properties, physiological signaling, and tunable tissue response have been achieved through chemical modification of polysaccharides. Moreover, an appropriate formulation strategy enables spatial placement of the scaffold to a targeted site. With the advent of newer technologies, these preparations can be tailor-made for responding to alterations in temperature, pH, or other physiological stimuli. In this review, we discuss the developmental and biological aspects of scaffolds prepared from four polysaccharides, viz. alginic acid (ALG), chitosan (CHI), hyaluronic acid (HA), and dextran (DEX). Clinical studies on these scaffolds are also discussed.
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.