Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 12;13(1):33.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0724-2.

Scaffolds for the repair of bone defects in clinical studies: a systematic review

Jian-Hua Zeng  1 , Shi-Wei Liu  2 , Long Xiong  3 , Peng Qiu  2 , Ling-Hua Ding  2 , Shi-Lang Xiong  4 , Jing-Tang Li  1 , Xin-Gen Liao  1 , Zhi-Ming Tang  1
Affiliations

Scaffolds for the repair of bone defects in clinical studies: a systematic review

Jian-Hua Zeng et al. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Background: This systematic review aims to summarize the clinical studies on the use of scaffolds in the repair of bony defects.

Methods: The relevant articles were searched through PubMed database. The following keywords and search terms were used: "scaffolds," "patient," "clinic," "bone repair," "bone regeneration," "repairing bone defect," "repair of bone," "osteanagenesis," "osteanaphysis," and "osteoanagenesis." The articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, performed by two reviewers.

Results: A total of 373 articles were obtained using PubMed database. After screening, 20 articles were identified as relevant for the purpose of this systematic review. We collected the data of biological scaffolds and synthetic scaffolds. There are eight clinical studies of biological scaffolds included collagen, gelatin, and cellular scaffolds for bone healing. In addition, 12 clinical studies of synthetic scaffolds on HAp, TCP, bonelike, and their complex scaffolds for repairing bone defects were involved in this systematic review.

Conclusions: There are a lot of clinical evidences showed that application of scaffolds had a good ability to facilitate bone repair and osteogenesis. However, the ideal and reliable guidelines are insufficiently applied and the number and quality of studies in this field remain to be improved.

Keywords: Bone regeneration; Clinical; Scaffolds.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The flow chart of literature selection for the systematic review
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pieske O, Wittmann A, Zaspel J, Loffler T, Rubenbauer B, Trentzsch H, et al. Autologous bone graft versus demineralized bone matrix in internal fixation of ununited long bones. J Trauma Manage Outcomes. 2009;3:11. doi: 10.1186/1752-2897-3-11. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oryan A, Alidadi S, Moshiri A, Maffulli N. Bone regenerative medicine: classic options, novel strategies, and future directions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:18. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-9-18. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nandi SK, Roy S, Mukherjee P, Kundu B, De DK, Basu D. Orthopaedic applications of bone graft & graft substitutes: a review. Indian J Med Res. 2010;132:15–30. - PubMed
    1. Goldberg VM, Stevenson S. Natural history of autografts and allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:7–16. - PubMed
    1. Behnia H, Khojasteh A, Soleimani M, Tehranchi A, Atashi A. Repair of alveolar cleft defect with mesenchymal stem cells and platelet derived growth factors: a preliminary report. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40:2–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.02.003. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types