2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2005.11.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Engineering of Craniofacial Tissues in the Laboratory: A Review of Biomaterials for Scaffolds and Implant Coatings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0
14

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
0
34
0
14
Order By: Relevance
“…Of particular significance is the progress that has been made in the areas of implantable devices and drug/device combination products, such as drug-eluting stents, [1][2][3][4][5] artificial organs, 6-9 biosensors, 10,11 catheters, 12 scaffolds for tissue engineering, [13][14][15] and heart valves. 16,17 Nevertheless, the biocompatibility of implantable devices remains a critical issue in limiting device longevity and functionality, particularly in the case of biosensors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of particular significance is the progress that has been made in the areas of implantable devices and drug/device combination products, such as drug-eluting stents, [1][2][3][4][5] artificial organs, 6-9 biosensors, 10,11 catheters, 12 scaffolds for tissue engineering, [13][14][15] and heart valves. 16,17 Nevertheless, the biocompatibility of implantable devices remains a critical issue in limiting device longevity and functionality, particularly in the case of biosensors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, bone substitute and grafting biomaterials are becoming increasingly important for all aspects of surgery and dentistry [1][2][3][4]. Within the broad range of biomaterials used in craniofacial bone surgery [5], calcium phosphate-based bioceramics, e.g. hydroxyapatite (HA) or β-tricalciumphosphate (β-TCP), are the most widely used and considered to be biocompatible, non-immunogenic and osteoconductive [57].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These factors negatively influence osteoconductivity and resorption at the implantation site. These bioceramics may therefore have a longer degradation time and even induce chronic inflammatory processes [5]. Recently, a granular material consisting of nanocrystalline HA embedded in a silica gel matrix [8] with an extremely large internal surface and a material porosity of about 60% [9] has been developed and approved.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typically, three groups of biomaterials are used to manufacture scaffolds: ceramic, synthetic polymers, and natural polymers [26] (table II). Biocompatible, similar to the inorganic component of bone, osteoconductiveness, absence of protein (providing lack of immune response) and high degradation time in vivo [2]. However, they have poor mechanical properties [27].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ceramics scaffolds such as hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate, have been widely used in bone regeneration because of their biocompatibility, similarity to the inorganic component of bone, osteoconductiveness, absence of protein in their composition (providing lack of immune response) and because of its high degradation time in vivo [2], which allows bone remodeling at the site of grafting. Its disadvantages are its low structural stiffness (and may not be used in large mechanical stresses regions) and its porous nature, which increases the risk of fractures [36].…”
Section: Tricalcium Phosphatementioning
confidence: 99%