4.2 Review

Bone morphogenetic protein 2 therapy for craniofacial surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 1244-1259

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181843312

关键词

BMP-2; cranioplasty; craniofacial surgery; pediatric; tissue engineering

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Between 2 and 10 years of age, the developing craniofacial skeleton poses a significant reconstructive challenge. Local autogenous bone is largely unavailable, distant bone grafts are fraught with significant morbidity and limited yield, and allo-plastic materials are incompatible with the growing calvarium and facial skeleton. Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) 2, a member of a class of proteins first noticed in the 1960s to promote bone deposition in soft tissues, offers a potential solution to the bone shortage historically faced by the pediatric craniofacial surgeon. A review of English language literature was conducted from the 1960s to the present. Attention was focused on BMP-2's osteoinductive mechanism, basic science and translational laboratory findings, and multidisciplinary clinical experiences. Bone morphogenetic protein 2 has been embraced by spine surgeons, is gaining in popularity for long-bone repair, and is making its way into the plastic surgery literature. Bone morphogenetic protein 2 may provide a basis for an off-the-shelf tissue-engineered bone construct that is compatible with the growing craniofacial skeleton while free from the morbidities of distant graft harvest. Questions remain, however, regarding the safety and efficacy of this compound in the context of pediatric craniofacial surgery. In an effort to facilitate the clinician's risk-benefit analysis of this emerging technology, we present a primer on the basic science of BMP-2, a discussion of possible morbidities associated with its use, a review of laboratory and clinical trials with this substance to date, and an analysis of strategies to maximize its efficacy in craniofacial surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据