In vivo imaging techniques for bone tissue engineering
Fragogeorgi EA., Rouchota M., Georgiou M., Velez M., Bouziotis P., Loudos G.
Narrative Review, published in J Tissue Eng (2019) — 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
- J Tissue Eng (2019)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31258885
- PMCID
- PMC6589947
- DOI
- 10.1177/2041731419854586
- Citations
- 26
Abstract (original English)
Bone is a dynamic tissue that constantly undergoes modeling and remodeling. Bone tissue engineering relying on the development of novel implant scaffolds for the treatment of pre-clinical bone defects has been extensively evaluated by histological techniques. The study of bone remodeling, that takes place over several weeks, is limited by the requirement of a large number of animals and time-consuming and labor-intensive procedures. X-ray-based imaging methods that can non-invasively detect the newly formed bone tissue have therefore been extensively applied in pre-clinical research and in clinical practice. The use of other imaging techniques at a pre-clinical level that act as supportive tools is convenient. This review mainly focuses on nuclear imaging methods (single photon emission computed tomography and positron emission tomography), either alone or used in combination with computed tomography. It addresses their application to small animal models with bone defects, both untreated and filled with substitute materials, to boost the knowledge on bone regenerative processes.
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.