4.7 Review

Hydrogels as Scaffolds in Bone-Related Tissue Engineering and Regeneration

期刊

MACROMOLECULAR BIOSCIENCE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/mabi.202300152

关键词

bone; hydrogels; scaffolds; tissue regeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tissue engineering is a promising field for treating bone diseases and defects. While autografts have been the gold standard, issues with grafting have led to the exploration of alternatives, including hydrogels. Hydrogels mimic the bone extracellular matrix and provide mechanical support and a basis for cell growth and tissue regeneration.
Several years have passed since the medical and scientific communities leaned toward tissue engineering as the most promising field to aid bone diseases and defects resulting from degenerative conditions or trauma. Owing to their histocompatibility and non-immunogenicity, bone grafts, precisely autografts, have long been the gold standard in bone tissue therapies. However, due to issues associated with grafting, especially the surgical risks and soaring prices of the procedures, alternatives are being extensively sought and researched. Fibrous and non-fibrous materials, synthetic substitutes, or cell-based products are just a few examples of research directions explored as potential solutions. A very promising subgroup of these replacements involves hydrogels. Biomaterials resembling the bone extracellular matrix and therefore acting as 3D scaffolds, providing the appropriate mechanical support and basis for cell growth and tissue regeneration. Additional possibility of using various stimuli in the form of growth factors, cells, etc., within the hydrogel structure, extends their use as bioactive agent delivery platforms and acts in favor of their further directed development. The aim of this review is to bring the reader closer to the fascinating subject of hydrogel scaffolds and present the potential of these materials, applied in bone and cartilage tissue engineering and 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

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