Literature DB >> 11937862

Bioactive materials in orthopaedic surgery: overview and regulatory considerations.

Thomas W Bauer1, Susanne T Smith.   

Abstract

Although bone graft continues to be the standard against which other skeletal substitutes are measured, orthopaedic surgeons soon will have various new tools available for skeletal reconstruction. With these tools, the distinctions between inert materials, resorbables, bioactive materials, transplantable tissues, engineered tissues, drugs, and composites become indistinct. Although almost any implanted material evokes some type of host reaction, in the context of reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, bioactive materials can be considered osteogenic, osteoconductive, osteoinductive, or a combination thereof. In the United States, the regulatory control of a new skeletal substitute material is complex, and is based in part on whether the material is considered primarily a biologic, a drug, or a medical device. Different agencies within the Food and Drug Administration have responsibility for regulatory control of different types of products. Although some new materials can be approved by a Premarket Notification (510(K)), others require a Premarket Approval Application. Regulations are being developed that affect the extent of regulatory influence over minimally manipulated tissues for transplantation.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11937862     DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200202000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  9 in total

Review 1.  [Bridging posttraumatic bony defects. Established and new methods].

Authors:  M Schieker; W Mutschler
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 2.  [Tissue engineering of bone tissue. Principles and clinical applications].

Authors:  B Schmidt-Rohlfing; C Tzioupis; C L Menzel; H C Pape
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.000

3.  Use of an osteoconductive compound as an aid in the management of a maxillary fracture in a boa constrictor.

Authors:  Sheila C Rahal; Carlos R Teixeira; Luiz C Vulcano; Antonio J A Aguiar
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.008

4.  Econazole-releasing porous space maintainers for fungal periprosthetic joint infection.

Authors:  Alexander M Tatara; Allison J Rozich; Panayiotis D Kontoyiannis; Emma Watson; Nathaniel D Albert; George N Bennett; Antonios G Mikos
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 3.896

5.  High strength bioactive glass-ceramic scaffolds for bone regeneration.

Authors:  Chiara Vitale-Brovarone; Francesco Baino; Enrica Verné
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2008-10-21       Impact factor: 3.896

6.  Tethering of Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) to Beta Tricalcium Phosphate (βTCP) via Fusion to a High Affinity, Multimeric βTCP-Binding Peptide: Effects on Human Multipotent Stromal Cells/Connective Tissue Progenitors.

Authors:  Luis M Alvarez; Jaime J Rivera; Linda Stockdale; Sunil Saini; Richard T Lee; Linda G Griffith
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Influence of Nano-HA Coated Bone Collagen to Acrylic (Polymethylmethacrylate) Bone Cement on Mechanical Properties and Bioactivity.

Authors:  Tao Li; Xisheng Weng; Yanyan Bian; Lei Zhou; Fuzhai Cui; Zhiye Qiu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  The future of bone healing.

Authors:  Catherine Cheung
Journal:  Clin Podiatr Med Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.231

9.  Physical and Histological Comparison of Hydroxyapatite, Carbonate Apatite, and β-Tricalcium Phosphate Bone Substitutes.

Authors:  Kunio Ishikawa; Youji Miyamoto; Akira Tsuchiya; Koichiro Hayashi; Kanji Tsuru; Go Ohe
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.623

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.