Literature DB >> 25779511

Smart scaffolds: the future of bioceramic.

Guy Daculsi1.   

Abstract

The commercial offer for bioceramic bone substitutes is very large, however, the prerequisites for applications in bone reconstruction and tissue engineering, are most often absent. The main criteria being: on the one hand physico-chemical features providing surgeons with an injectable and/or shapeable biomaterial; on the second hand the multi-scale bioactivity leading to osteoconduction and osteoinduction properties. In order to obtain greater suitability according to the nature of the bone defect to be treated, new bone regeneration technologies, "smart scaffolds" must be developed and optimize to support suitable Ortho Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25779511     DOI: 10.1007/s10856-015-5482-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med        ISSN: 0957-4530            Impact factor:   3.896


  19 in total

Review 1.  Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering.

Authors:  Scott J Hollister
Journal:  Nat Mater       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 43.841

2.  In vitro structural changes in porous HA/beta-TCP scaffolds in simulated body fluid.

Authors:  S Sánchez-Salcedo; F Balas; I Izquierdo-Barba; M Vallet-Regí
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2009-03-29       Impact factor: 8.947

3.  The effect of calcium phosphate microstructure on bone-related cells in vitro.

Authors:  Xiaoming Li; Clemens A van Blitterswijk; Qingling Feng; Fuzhai Cui; Fumio Watari
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 12.479

4.  Multiscale osteointegration as a new paradigm for the design of calcium phosphate scaffolds for bone regeneration.

Authors:  Sheeny K Lan Levengood; Samantha J Polak; Matthew B Wheeler; Aaron J Maki; Sherrie G Clark; Russell D Jamison; Amy J Wagoner Johnson
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 12.479

5.  Osteoclast-like cells on deproteinized bovine bone mineral and biphasic calcium phosphate: light and transmission electron microscopical observations.

Authors:  Simon S Jensen; Reinhard Gruber; Daniel Buser; Dieter D Bosshardt
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 5.977

6.  Osteoclastic resorption of calcium phosphate ceramics with different hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate ratios.

Authors:  S Yamada; D Heymann; J M Bouler; G Daculsi
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 12.479

7.  Effect of increased strut porosity of calcium phosphate bone graft substitute biomaterials on osteoinduction.

Authors:  Melanie J Coathup; Karin A Hing; Sorousheh Samizadeh; Oliver Chan; Yvette S Fang; Charlie Campion; Thomas Buckland; Gordon W Blunn
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 4.396

8.  Microstructure and chemistry affects apatite nucleation on calcium phosphate bone graft substitutes.

Authors:  Charlie R Campion; Sara L Ball; Daniel L Clarke; Karin A Hing
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 3.896

9.  Developments in injectable multiphasic biomaterials. The performance of microporous biphasic calcium phosphate granules and hydrogels.

Authors:  G Daculsi; A P Uzel; P Weiss; E Goyenvalle; E Aguado
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 3.896

10.  Osteogenicity of biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics and bone autograft in a goat model.

Authors:  Borhane H Fellah; Olivier Gauthier; Pierre Weiss; Daniel Chappard; Pierre Layrolle
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 12.479

View more
  1 in total

1.  Calcium phosphate/thermoresponsive hyaluronan hydrogel composite delivering hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs.

Authors:  Dalila Petta; Garland Fussell; Lisa Hughes; Douglas D Buechter; Christoph M Sprecher; Mauro Alini; David Eglin; Matteo D'Este
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 5.191

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.