3.8 Review

Current Concepts and Challenges in Osteochondral Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

期刊

ACS BIOMATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
卷 1, 期 4, 页码 183-200

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ab500038y

关键词

osteochondral tissue engineering; layered scaffold; biomimetic; interface engineering; clinical trial; pluripotent stem cells

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through projects TISSUE2TISSUE [PTDC/CTM/105703/2008]
  2. OsteoCart [PTDC/CTM-BPC/115977/2009]
  3. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [REGPOT-CT2012-316331-POLARIS]
  4. FCT [SFRH/BD/64717/2009]
  5. Investigator FCT program [IF/00423/2012, IF/00411/2013]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/CTM/105703/2008, PTDC/CTM-BPC/115977/2009, SFRH/BD/64717/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past few years, great progress has been made to validate tissue engineering strategies in preclinical studies and clinical trials on the regeneration of osteochondral defects. In the preclinical studies, one of the dominant strategies comprises the development of biomimetic/bioactive scaffolds, which are used alone or incorporated with growth factors and/or stem cells. Many new trends are emerging for modulation of stem cell fate toward osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiations, but bone/cartilage interface regeneration and physical stimulus have been showing great promise. Besides the matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) procedure, the matrix-associated stem cell implantation (MASI) and layered scaffolds in acellular or cellular strategy are also applied in clinic. This review outlines the progresses at preclinical and clinical levels, and identifies the new challenges in osteochondral tissue engineering. Future perspectives are provided, e.g., the applications of extracellular matrix-like biomaterials, computer-aided design/manufacture of osteochondral implant, and reprogrammed cells for osteochondral regeneration.

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

3.8
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