Journal
WORLD JOURNAL OF STEM CELLS
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 657-668Publisher
BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4252/wjsc.v7.i3.657
Keywords
Bone tissue engineering; Scaffold; Growth factor; Nanoparticle; Extracellular matrix
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
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.-11 studies), extracellular matrix-like molecules (group.-13 studies) and nanoparticles (nano-HA) (group.-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., 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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available