2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.09.044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tissue-specific extracellular matrix scaffolds for the regeneration of spatially complex musculoskeletal tissues

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
70
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
1
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast with an almost generalized use of macroscopic and microscopic scores (mainly ICRS score and O'Driscoll score) and histological analyses, in 7/14 papers, microtomographical assessment is reported, and in 5/14 papers, biomechanical tests are performed; among these, 4/5 were indentation tests and 1/5 compression test. When specified, the site selected for the creation of osteochondral defects was in one case the talus [56], in one paper, the trochlea and the medial condyles [57], and for the other papers, medial condyles [5862] or both medial and lateral condyles [29, 6375]. In some cases, the choice of central weight-bearing area was underlined [60, 61, 66, 67].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast with an almost generalized use of macroscopic and microscopic scores (mainly ICRS score and O'Driscoll score) and histological analyses, in 7/14 papers, microtomographical assessment is reported, and in 5/14 papers, biomechanical tests are performed; among these, 4/5 were indentation tests and 1/5 compression test. When specified, the site selected for the creation of osteochondral defects was in one case the talus [56], in one paper, the trochlea and the medial condyles [57], and for the other papers, medial condyles [5862] or both medial and lateral condyles [29, 6375]. In some cases, the choice of central weight-bearing area was underlined [60, 61, 66, 67].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Xenogeneic extracellular matrix (ECM)‐derived biological scaffolds have been used in a variety of clinical indications, promoting tissue repair by providing both structural and functional cues to resident cells (Badylak, ; Badylak, Freytes, & Gilbert, ). ECM scaffolds fabricated from decellularized animal or human AC tissue are promising biomaterials for AC regeneration due to their inherent chondro‐inductivity (Almeida et al, , ; Almeida, Eswaramoorthy, et al, ; Beck, Barragan, Libeer, et al, ; Beck, Barragan, Tadros, Gehrke, & Detamore, ; Benders et al, ; Cheng, Estes, Awad, & Guilak, ; Cunniffe et al, ; Gawlitta et al, ; Sutherland, Beck, et al, ; Sutherland, Converse, Hopkins, & Detamore, ; Vindas Bolaños et al, ; Yang et al, ). Such biological scaffolds typically take one of two forms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The strategy developed in this study to generate scaled-up osteochondral implants offers several advantages over previous tissue engineering and 3D bioprinting approaches to joint regeneration. As mentioned previously, a number of studies have explored the use of different biphasic and tri-phasic scaffolds for cartilage and osteochondral defect repair 14,[29][30][31][32] . While these approaches are promising for treating focal defects, challenges will arise when attempting to scaleup such approaches up to treat whole articular surfaces.…”
Section: Addressing the Challenge Of Cartilage-bone Region Integratiomentioning
confidence: 99%