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

Silk-Based Materials for Hard Tissue Engineering

Neubauer VJ., Döbl A., Scheibel T.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, published in Materials (Basel) (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
Materials (Basel) (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
33535662
PMCID
PMC7867174
DOI
10.3390/ma14030674
Citations
28

Abstract (original English)

Hard tissues, e.g., bone, are mechanically stiff and, most typically, mineralized. To design scaffolds for hard tissue regeneration, mechanical, physico-chemical and biological cues must align with those found in the natural tissue. Combining these aspects poses challenges for material and construct design. Silk-based materials are promising for bone tissue regeneration as they fulfill several of such necessary requirements, and they are non-toxic and biodegradable. They can be processed into a variety of morphologies such as hydrogels, particles and fibers and can be mineralized. Therefore, silk-based materials are versatile candidates for biomedical applications in the field of hard tissue engineering. This review summarizes silk-based approaches for mineralized tissue replacements, and how to find the balance between sufficient material stiffness upon mineralization and cell survival upon attachment as well as nutrient supply.

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.

Related research