Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Scaffold design for bone regeneration

Polo-Corrales L., Latorre-Esteves M., Ramirez-Vick JE.

Narrative Review on Scar, published in J Nanosci Nanotechnol (2014) — 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
J Nanosci Nanotechnol (2014)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
24730250
PMCID
PMC3997175
DOI
10.1166/jnn.2014.9127
Citations
483

Abstract (original English)

The use of bone grafts is the standard to treat skeletal fractures, or to replace and regenerate lost bone, as demonstrated by the large number of bone graft procedures performed worldwide. The most common of these is the autograft, however, its use can lead to complications such as pain, infection, scarring, blood loss, and donor-site morbidity. The alternative is allografts, but they lack the osteoactive capacity of autografts and carry the risk of carrying infectious agents or immune rejection. Other approaches, such as the bone graft substitutes, have focused on improving the efficacy of bone grafts or other scaffolds by incorporating bone progenitor cells and growth factors to stimulate cells. An ideal bone graft or scaffold should be made of biomaterials that imitate the structure and properties of natural bone ECM, include osteoprogenitor cells and provide all the necessary environmental cues found in natural bone. However, creating living tissue constructs that are structurally, functionally and mechanically comparable to the natural bone has been a challenge so far. This focus of this review is on the evolution of these scaffolds as bone graft substitutes in the process of recreating the bone tissue microenvironment, including biochemical and biophysical cues.

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
OsteoblastsAnimalsHumansBone SubstitutesBone TransplantationGuided Tissue RegenerationEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisBone RegenerationOsteogenesis

Browse all related research

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

Related research