Bone tissue substitutes and replacements

Theler, Jared M.

doi:10.1097/moo.0b013e32834883f2

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a tissue‐engineering approach, target cells, growth factors and biomaterial scaffolds are combined to form a three‐dimensional (3D) graft (Kneser et al ., ; Salgado et al ., ). Finding a suitable scaffold for bone tissue engineering is challenging: autografts ('gold standard'), allografts and xenografts are all considered, but they exhibit some issues and limitations, such as risk of infection, low mechanical stability, limited osteoconductivity, processing costs or restricted availability (Zimmermann and Moghaddam, ; Theler, ; Moore et al ., ; Bucholz, ). Indeed, donor site morbidity, restrictions on the amount of graft material available and concerns about the immunogenicity of autograft bone have prompted the search for suitable synthetic bone substitutes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of osteoclasts in bone tissue engineering

Detsch

Boccaccını

2014

J Tissue Eng Regen Med

122

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of scaffold-based bone regeneration approaches strongly depends on the performance of the biomaterial utilized. Within the efforts of regenerative medicine towards a restitutio ad integrum (i.e. complete reconstruction of a diseased tissue), scaffolds should be completely degraded within an adequate period of time. The degradation of synthetic bone substitute materials involves both chemical dissolution (physicochemical degradation) and resorption (cellular degradation by osteoclasts). Responsible for bone resorption are osteoclasts, cells of haematopoietic origin. Osteoclasts play also a crucial role in bone remodelling, which is essential for the regeneration of bone defects. There is, however, surprisingly limited knowledge about the detailed effects of osteoclasts on biomaterials degradation behaviour. This review covers the relevant fundamental knowledge and progress made in the field of osteoclast activity related to biomaterials used for bone regeneration. In vitro studies with osteoclastic precursor cells on synthetic bone substitute materials show that there are specific parameters that inhibit or enhance resorption. Moreover, analyses of the bone-material interface reveal that biomaterials composition has a significant influence on their degradation in contact with osteoclasts. Crystallinity, grain size, surface bioactivity and density of the surface seem to have a less significant effect on osteoclastic activity. In addition, the topography of the scaffold surface can be tailored to affect the development and spreading of osteoclast cells. The present review also highlights possible areas on which future research is needed and which are relevant to enhance our understanding of the complex role of osteoclasts in bone tissue engineering.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of osteoclasts in bone tissue engineering

Detsch

Boccaccını

2014

J Tissue Eng Regen Med

122

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Throughout the years, a variety of materials have been suggested as an alternative to autologous bone (Bayerlein et al. ; Theler ); among those, fresh‐frozen allogeneic bone graft (AL) has gained renewed attention during recent years (Eppley et al. ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Throughout the years, a variety of materials have been suggested as an alternative to autologous bone (Bayerlein et al 2006;Theler 2011); among those, fresh-frozen allogeneic bone graft (AL) has gained renewed attention during recent years (Eppley et al 2005). AL has the obvious advantages of being easily obtainable in large quantities (from certified bone-tissue banks) and of reduced morbidity and surgical time due to absence of a second surgical donor area, making thus AL an attractive clinical alternative to AT.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunological aspects of fresh‐frozen allogeneic bone grafting for lateral ridge augmentation

Spin‐Neto

Stavropoulos

Freitas

et al. 2012

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To present some immunological aspects of fresh‐frozen allogeneic bone grafting for lateral bone augmentation, based on the quantitative evaluation of IL‐10, IL‐1β, IFN‐ γ and TNF‐ α in patients sera. Material and methods Thirty‐three partially or totally edentulous patients received fresh‐frozen allogeneic bone (AL – 20 patients) or autologous bone onlay block grafts (AT – 13 patients) prior to oral implant placement. Blood samples were collected from each patient at various time‐points during a 6 month‐period (baseline, 14, 30, 90 and 180 days postoperatively). Quantitative evaluation of IL‐10, IL‐1β, IFN‐ γ and TNF‐ α was performed by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results For all evaluated markers and at all evaluated periods, inter‐group comparisons showed no statistically significant differences between the groups, while the observed values were within normal levels. For AL‐treated patients, intra‐group evaluation showed statistically significant increase of TNF‐α from baseline to 90 (P < 0.001) and 180 (P < 0.01) days, and from 14 to 90 (P < 0.01) and 180 (P < 0.05) days. IFN‐ γ showed intercalated results, with a decrease from baseline to 14 days (P < 0.05), and increase from 14 to 90 days (P < 0.001) and 180 (P < 0.05) days. No differences between the periods of evaluation were found for the AT group. Conclusions AL grafting for lateral bone augmentation, similar to AT grafting, does not seem to challenge the immune system significantly.

show abstract

“…Chemically similar to the mineral components of mammalian bone, it is classed as bioactive, and is involved in promotion of bone growth as well as in osseointegration. The use of HA cement is well documented in the literature as an alternative to bone grafts (Theler, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%