Regenerating bone with bioactive glass scaffolds: A review of in vivo studies in bone defect models

El-Rashidy, Aiah A.; Roether, Judith A.; Harhaus, Leila; Kneser, Ulrich; Boccaccını, Aldo R.

doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2017.08.030

Cited by 484 publications

(385 citation statements)

References 139 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

352

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although BGs have been used for decades to improve bone repairs, none of the currently available BGs possess all the desirable characteristics that such a biomaterial should have: high osteoinductive and angiogenic potentials, biological safety, low patient morbidity, high volumetric stability, easy market availability, long shelf life and reasonable production costs (Bose, Roy, & Bandyopadhyay, ; Hutmacher, ; El‐Rashidy, Roether, Harhaus, Kneser, & Boccaccini, ). The problems associated with transplanted grafts have raised interest in synthetically improved BGs (Board, ; Rothermundt et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?

Haugen

Lyngstadaas

Rossi

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

393

353

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bovine xenograft materials, followed by synthetic biomaterials, which unfortunately still lack documented predictability and clinical performance, dominate the market for the cranio‐maxillofacial area. In Europe, new stringent regulations are expected to further limit the allograft market in the future. Aim Within this narrative review, we discuss possible future biomaterials for bone replacement. Scientific Rationale for Study Although the bone graft (BG) literature is overflooded, only a handful of new BG substitutes are clinically available. Laboratory studies tend to focus on advanced production methods and novel biomaterial features, which can be costly to produce. Practical Implications In this review, we ask why such a limited number of BGs are clinically available when compared to extensive laboratory studies. We also discuss what features are needed for an ideal BG. Results We have identified the key properties of current bone substitutes and have provided important information to guide clinical decision‐making and generate new perspectives on bone substitutes. Our results indicated that different mechanical and biological properties are needed despite each having a broad spectrum of variations. Conclusions We foresee bone replacement composite materials with higher levels of bioactivity, providing an appropriate balance between bioabsorption and volume maintenance for achieving ideal bone remodelling.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?

Haugen

Lyngstadaas

Rossi

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

393

353

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At present, the commercial use of bioactive glasses is mainly restricted to melt‐derived components, in the form of powders, granules or small monoliths. Complex cellular shapes may be obtained by viscous flow sintering of fine glass powders, typically by replication of polyurethane foam sacrificial templates, for the manufacturing of open‐celled foams, or by direct ink writing of glass/sacrificial binder pastes, for the manufacturing of three‐dimensional reticulated scaffolds . Noncrystallized porous scaffolds (foams) may be obtained by a different strategy, that is, using the sol‐gel technique, but they have not yet been approved for clinical use .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosilicate^® scaffolds produced by 3D‐printing and direct foaming using preceramic polymers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monolithic and powdered Biosilicate®, produced by conventional glass‐ceramic technology, have been widely recognized as excellent materials for bone tissue engineering applications. In the current research, we focus on an alternative processing route for this material, consisting of the thermal treatment of silicone polymers containing micro‐sized oxide fillers, which offers a unique integration between materials synthesis and shaping. In particular, the new method allows obtaining highly porous Biosilicate® glass‐ceramics, in the form of 3D printed scaffolds and foams. 3D scaffolds were successfully fabricated by direct writing using an ink based on a silicone polymer and active inorganic fillers, followed by firing in air at 1000°C. The products showed regular geometries, large open porosity (~60 vol%) and still high compressive strength (~7 MPa). Open‐cellular foams with porosity up to ∼80 vol% were also prepared from liquid silicones mixed with several fillers, including hydrated sodium phosphate. This specific filler acted both as a foaming agent, because of the gas release by dehydration occurring at low temperature, and as a provider of liquid phase upon firing in air, again at 1000°C.

show abstract

“…[47][48][49][50][51] These strategies were also pursued in the field of orbital implants, as described in the next sections. [47][48][49][50][51] These strategies were also pursued in the field of orbital implants, as described in the next sections.…”

Section: Glasses For Making Orbital Implants?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioactive glass and glass‐ceramic orbital implants

Baino

Verné

Fiume

et al. 2019

Int J Applied Ceramic Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review focuses on the applications of bioactive glasses and glass‐ceramics in the field of orbital implants for ocular surgery. This use is relatively novel and less popular compared to the applications in orthopedics and dentistry for the repair of bone and teeth. Recent studies have shown the suitability of bioactive glasses and glass‐ceramics in contact with soft tissues for promoting additional effects associated to the release of therapeutic inorganic ions. Specifically, the angiogenic and antibacterial actions that may be elicited by selected glass compositions are highly appealing for the development of new‐generation orbital implants, since improved vascularization and antiseptic properties are the key for a higher success rate of anophthalmic socket procedures. An overall picture of existing orbital implants based on bioactive glasses is here provided, and the further potential and open challenges for future research in this field are highlighted and discussed.

show abstract

Regenerating bone with bioactive glass scaffolds: A review of in vivo studies in bone defect models

Cited by 484 publications

References 139 publications

Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?

Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?

Biosilicate^® scaffolds produced by 3D‐printing and direct foaming using preceramic polymers

Bioactive glass and glass‐ceramic orbital implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Regenerating bone with bioactive glass scaffolds: A review of in vivo studies in bone defect models

Cited by 484 publications

References 139 publications

Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?

Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?

Biosilicate® scaffolds produced by 3D‐printing and direct foaming using preceramic polymers

Bioactive glass and glass‐ceramic orbital implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Biosilicate^® scaffolds produced by 3D‐printing and direct foaming using preceramic polymers