Utilizing an integrated tri-layered scaffold with Titanium-Mesh-Cage base to repair cartilage defects of knee in goat model

Recent development in multizonal scaffolds for osteochondral regeneration

“…Recent studies further confirmed that inserting a dense tidemark layer at the interface ( Fig. 3 B) prevented cell migration within bilayered polymeric scaffolds and eventually delayed the integration of the cartilage layer [ 74 , 84 , 94 ]. Another approach to diminish mechanical weakness at the interface between the two layers was to fabricate bilayered scaffolds using one single polymeric material but two different pore size distributions.…”

“…Studies reported bilayered scaffolds coupling polymer-camphene [ 78 ], two different polymers [ 68 ], polymer-bioglass [ 79 ], and decellularized cartilage matrix-decalcified bone matrix [ 66 , 80 ] to promote both osteogenesis and chondrogenesis. In some cases, osteoconductive metals are used for the bone layer [ [81] , [82] , [83] , [84] , [85] ]. Specifically, HAP (further discussed in Section 4 ) has been embedded in the bone layer due to its remarkable osteoconductive property.…”

Structural and Material Determinants Influencing the Behavior of Porous Ti and Its Alloys Made by Additive Manufacturing Techniques for Biomedical Applications

“…In [173], the bioactivity of SLM-made Ti-6Al-4V scaffolds was improved by forming TiO 2 nanotubes on the surface through twostep anodization and loading mesoporous bioactive glass into TiO 2 nanotubes. Another research group [174] successfully obtained an SLM-made integrated trilayered scaffold with titanium (Ti-6Al-4V)-Mesh-Cage, filled with the autogenous cancellous bone for the bone graft to the osteochondral defect. The results showed that the original defect was fully covered by cartilagelike tissue only 3 months after the in vivo test.…”

Systematic Comparison of Biomaterials‐Based Strategies for Osteochondral and Chondral Repair in Large Animal Models

“…[71,72] However, we note that the length of time between defect creation and construct implantation in practice varied considerably, from just 1 [53] to 8 weeks. [73] The success/failure rate of each study was analyzed, with success defined as a significant improvement in cartilage regeneration compared to the control group at study end-point. 43% of studies performed in acute models reported no improvement following treatment, whereas just 20% of studies in chronic models failed to regenerate the tissue.…”

“…[ 71,72 ] However, we note that the length of time between defect creation and construct implantation in practice varied considerably, from just 1 [ 53 ] to 8 weeks. [ 73 ]…”