4.7 Review

Reconstructing Bone with Natural Bone Graft: A Review of In Vivo Studies in Bone Defect Animal Model

Journal

NANOMATERIALS
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano8120999

Keywords

natural bone graft; decellularized bone matrix scaffold; demineralized bone matrix scaffold; animal defect model; bone reconstruction

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11672051, 11702043, 11872134]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018CDQYSG0015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bone defects caused by fracture, disease or congenital defect remains a medically important problem to be solved. Bone tissue engineering (BTE) is a promising approach by providing scaffolds to guide and support the treatment of bone defects. However, the autologous bone graft has many defects such as limited sources and long surgical procedures. Therefore, xenograft bone graft is considered as one of the best substitutions and has been effectively used in clinical practice. Due to better preserved natural bone structure, suitable mechanical properties, low immunogenicity, good osteoinductivity and osteoconductivity in natural bone graft, decellularized and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) scaffolds were selected and discussed in the present review. In vivo animal models provide a complex physiological environment for understanding and evaluating material properties and provide important reference data for clinical trials. The purpose of this review is to outline the in vivo bone regeneration and remodeling capabilities of decellularized and DBM scaffolds in bone defect models to better evaluate the potential of these two types of scaffolds in BTE. Taking into account the limitations of the state-of-the-art technology, the results of the animal bone defect model also provide important information for future design of natural bone composite scaffolds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available