The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical <i>In Vivo</i> Studies: A Systematic Review
Bioceramic scaffolds are appealing for alveolar bone regeneration, because they are emerging as promising alternatives to autogenous and heterogenous bone grafts. The aim of this systematic review is to answer to the focal question: in critical-sized bone defects in experimental animal models, does...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-03-01
|
Series: | Materials |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/13/7/1500 |
id |
doaj-6839d70d375844129c593df6d8fc71f3 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-6839d70d375844129c593df6d8fc71f32020-11-25T01:44:36ZengMDPI AGMaterials1996-19442020-03-01137150010.3390/ma13071500ma13071500The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical <i>In Vivo</i> Studies: A Systematic ReviewGiulia Brunello0Sourav Panda1Lucia Schiavon2Stefano Sivolella3Lisa Biasetto4Massimo Del Fabbro5Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Stradella San Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Commenda 10, 20122 Milan, ItalySection of Dentistry, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128 Padova, ItalySection of Dentistry, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128 Padova, ItalyDepartment of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Stradella San Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Commenda 10, 20122 Milan, ItalyBioceramic scaffolds are appealing for alveolar bone regeneration, because they are emerging as promising alternatives to autogenous and heterogenous bone grafts. The aim of this systematic review is to answer to the focal question: in critical-sized bone defects in experimental animal models, does the use of a bioceramic scaffolds improve new bone formation, compared with leaving the empty defect without grafting materials or using autogenous bone or deproteinized bovine-derived bone substitutes? Electronic databases were searched using specific search terms. A hand search was also undertaken. Only randomized and controlled studies in the English language, published in peer-reviewed journals between 2013 and 2018, using critical-sized bone defect models in non-medically compromised animals, were considered. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the SYRCLE tool. A meta-analysis was planned to synthesize the evidence, if possible. Thirteen studies reporting on small animal models (six studies on rats and seven on rabbits) were included. The calvarial bone defect was the most common experimental site. The empty defect was used as the only control in all studies except one. In all studies the bioceramic materials demonstrated a trend for better outcomes compared to an empty control. Due to heterogeneity in protocols and outcomes among the included studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. Bioceramics can be considered promising grafting materials, though further evidence is needed.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/13/7/1500animal studybioceramicbone graftingcritical-sized bone defectscaffold |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Giulia Brunello Sourav Panda Lucia Schiavon Stefano Sivolella Lisa Biasetto Massimo Del Fabbro |
spellingShingle |
Giulia Brunello Sourav Panda Lucia Schiavon Stefano Sivolella Lisa Biasetto Massimo Del Fabbro The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical <i>In Vivo</i> Studies: A Systematic Review Materials animal study bioceramic bone grafting critical-sized bone defect scaffold |
author_facet |
Giulia Brunello Sourav Panda Lucia Schiavon Stefano Sivolella Lisa Biasetto Massimo Del Fabbro |
author_sort |
Giulia Brunello |
title |
The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical <i>In Vivo</i> Studies: A Systematic Review |
title_short |
The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical <i>In Vivo</i> Studies: A Systematic Review |
title_full |
The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical <i>In Vivo</i> Studies: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr |
The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical <i>In Vivo</i> Studies: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical <i>In Vivo</i> Studies: A Systematic Review |
title_sort |
impact of bioceramic scaffolds on bone regeneration in preclinical <i>in vivo</i> studies: a systematic review |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Materials |
issn |
1996-1944 |
publishDate |
2020-03-01 |
description |
Bioceramic scaffolds are appealing for alveolar bone regeneration, because they are emerging as promising alternatives to autogenous and heterogenous bone grafts. The aim of this systematic review is to answer to the focal question: in critical-sized bone defects in experimental animal models, does the use of a bioceramic scaffolds improve new bone formation, compared with leaving the empty defect without grafting materials or using autogenous bone or deproteinized bovine-derived bone substitutes? Electronic databases were searched using specific search terms. A hand search was also undertaken. Only randomized and controlled studies in the English language, published in peer-reviewed journals between 2013 and 2018, using critical-sized bone defect models in non-medically compromised animals, were considered. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the SYRCLE tool. A meta-analysis was planned to synthesize the evidence, if possible. Thirteen studies reporting on small animal models (six studies on rats and seven on rabbits) were included. The calvarial bone defect was the most common experimental site. The empty defect was used as the only control in all studies except one. In all studies the bioceramic materials demonstrated a trend for better outcomes compared to an empty control. Due to heterogeneity in protocols and outcomes among the included studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. Bioceramics can be considered promising grafting materials, though further evidence is needed. |
topic |
animal study bioceramic bone grafting critical-sized bone defect scaffold |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/13/7/1500 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT giuliabrunello theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT souravpanda theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT luciaschiavon theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT stefanosivolella theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT lisabiasetto theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT massimodelfabbro theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT giuliabrunello impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT souravpanda impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT luciaschiavon impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT stefanosivolella impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT lisabiasetto impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview AT massimodelfabbro impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicaliinvivoistudiesasystematicreview |
_version_ |
1725027607988142080 |