4.8 Review

In vitro and in vivo efficacy of naturally derived scaffolds for cartilage repair and regeneration

Journal

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
Volume 171, Issue -, Pages 1-18

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.09.008

Keywords

Cartilage; Scaffolds; Glycosaminoglycans; Collagen; Modulus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper provides an in-depth investigation of the performance of naturally derived materials used in repairing/regenerating articular cartilage. While most natural constructs with native biomolecules have shown sub-optimal results in the past, current trends suggest that these materials have promising potential for effective scaffold fabrication.
Intrinsically present bioactive cues allow naturally derived materials to mimic important characteristics of cartilage while also facilitating cellular recruitment, infiltration, and differentiation. Such traits are of-ten what tissue engineers desire when they fabricate scaffolds, and yet, literature from the past decade is replete with examples of how most natural constructs with native biomolecules have only offered sub-optimal results in the treatment of cartilage defects. This paper provides an in-depth investigation of the performance of such scaffolds through a review of a collection of natural materials that have been used so far in repairing/regenerating articular cartilage. Although in vivo and clinical studies are the best indicators of scaffold efficacy, it was, however, observed that a large number of natural constructs had very promising scaffold characteristics to begin with, and would often show good in vitro/in vivo results. Finally, an examination of the biochemistry and biomechanics of repair tissues in studies that reported positive outcomes showed that these attributes often approached target cartilage values. The paper concludes with an outline of current trends as well as future directions for the field.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available