4.7 Review

Material-based therapy for bone nonunion

期刊

MATERIALS & DESIGN
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108161

关键词

Material; Bone nonunion; Classification; Pathological feature; Treatment progress

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81171681, 81701811, 81671804, 81772456]
  2. Scientific Development Program of Jilin Province [20190304123YY, 20180623050TC, 20180201041SF, 20170204004GX, 20160101109JC, 20150414006GH, 20150312028ZG]
  3. Program of Department of Health, Jilin Province [2017F007, 2016Q021, 2016C037]
  4. Cultivation Program from the Second Hospital of Jilin University for National Natural Science Foundation [KYPY2018-01]
  5. Graduate Innovation Fund of Jilin University [101832018C073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bone nonunion has become one of the most severe sequelae of fractures, infections, bone tumors, or revision arthroplasty owing to its high morbidity and disability rate. Recently, bone nonunion has received considerable attention from plastic surgeons. There are different treatment methods for nonunion depending on its classification according to the etiology and pathological types. Bone tissue engineering provides advanced platforms for the treatment of bone nonunion via the use of material scaffolds with sufficient mechanical strength. Meanwhile, it promotes bone regeneration and osseointegration by the addition of various growth factors or drugs. This review describes in detail the classification and leading causes of nonunion, as well as the clinical treatment methods and basic research progress, including the design of metal and bioactive material scaffolds. Future challenges in engineering, material science, and three-dimensional printing are also summarized. This article may provide new perspectives of the clinical translation for the treatment of bone nonunion by understanding the pathogenic mechanism and the rational application of bioactive scaffolds. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.7
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