AIM: To improve osteogenic differentiation and attachment of cells. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed from January 2004 to December 2013. Studies which performed smart modifications on conventional bone scaffold materials were included. Scaffolds with controlled release or encapsulation of bioactive molecules were not included. Experiments which did not investigate response of cells toward the scaffold (cell attachment, proliferation or osteoblastic differentiation) were excluded. RESULTS: Among 1458 studies, 38 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main scaffold varied extensively among the included studies. Smart modifications included addition of growth factors (group I-11 studies), extracellular matrix-like molecules (group II-13 studies) and nanoparticles (nano-HA) (group III-17 studies). In all groups, surface coating was the most commonly applied approach for smart modification of scaffolds. In group I, bone morphogenetic proteins were mainly used as growth factor stabilized on polycaprolactone (PCL). In group II, collagen 1 in combination with PCL, hydroxyapatite (HA) and tricalcium phosphate were the most frequent scaffolds used. In the third group, nano-HA with PCL and chitosan were used the most. As variable methods were used, a thorough and comprehensible compare between the results and approaches was unattainable. CONCLUSION: Regarding the variability in methodology of these in vitro studies it was demonstrated that smart modification of scaffolds can improve tissue properties.
AIM: To improve osteogenic differentiation and attachment of cells. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed from January 2004 to December 2013. Studies which performed smart modifications on conventional bone scaffold materials were included. Scaffolds with controlled release or encapsulation of bioactive molecules were not included. Experiments which did not investigate response of cells toward the scaffold (cell attachment, proliferation or osteoblastic differentiation) were excluded. RESULTS: Among 1458 studies, 38 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main scaffold varied extensively among the included studies. Smart modifications included addition of growth factors (group I-11 studies), extracellular matrix-like molecules (group II-13 studies) and nanoparticles (nano-HA) (group III-17 studies). In all groups, surface coating was the most commonly applied approach for smart modification of scaffolds. In group I, bone morphogenetic proteins were mainly used as growth factor stabilized on polycaprolactone (PCL). In group II, collagen 1 in combination with PCL, hydroxyapatite (HA) and tricalcium phosphate were the most frequent scaffolds used. In the third group, nano-HA with PCL and chitosan were used the most. As variable methods were used, a thorough and comprehensible compare between the results and approaches was unattainable. CONCLUSION: Regarding the variability in methodology of these in vitro studies it was demonstrated that smart modification of scaffolds can improve tissue properties.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone tissue engineering; Extracellular matrix; Growth factor; Nanoparticle; Scaffold
Authors: Zhe Xing; Torbjorn O Pedersen; Xujun Wu; Ying Xue; Yang Sun; Anna Finne-Wistrand; Frank R Kloss; Thilo Waag; Anke Krueger; Doris Steinmüller-Nethl; Kamal Mustafa Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Ji Guo; Xifeng Liu; A Lee Miller; Brian E Waletzki; Michael J Yaszemski; Lichun Lu Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 4.396