4.6 Review

Bone defect reconstruction via endochondral ossification: A developmental engineering strategy

期刊

JOURNAL OF TISSUE ENGINEERING
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/20417314211004211

关键词

Developmental engineering; bone defect reconstruction; endochondral ossification; hypertrophic cartilage; bone tissue engineering

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81871571]
  2. Shanghai Pujiang Program [2019PJD023]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditional bone tissue engineering strategies face limitations in vascularization and bone regeneration, while engineering cartilaginous constructs mimicking embryonic processes offer a unique ability to promote bone regeneration. These developmentally engineered constructs can serve as transient biomimetic templates for facilitating bone regeneration in critical-sized defects.
Traditional bone tissue engineering (BTE) strategies induce direct bone-like matrix formation by mimicking the embryological process of intramembranous ossification. However, the clinical translation of these clinical strategies for bone repair is hampered by limited vascularization and poor bone regeneration after implantation in vivo. An alternative strategy for overcoming these drawbacks is engineering cartilaginous constructs by recapitulating the embryonic processes of endochondral ossification (ECO); these constructs have shown a unique ability to survive under hypoxic conditions as well as induce neovascularization and ossification. Such developmentally engineered constructs can act as transient biomimetic templates to facilitate bone regeneration in critical-sized defects. This review introduces the concept and mechanism of developmental BTE, explores the routes of endochondral bone graft engineering, highlights the current state of the art in large bone defect reconstruction via ECO-based strategies, and offers perspectives on the challenges and future directions of translating current knowledge from the bench to the bedside.

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

4.6
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