Cargando…

The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brunello, Giulia, Panda, Sourav, Schiavon, Lucia, Sivolella, Stefano, Biasetto, Lisa, Del Fabbro, Massimo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7177381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32218290
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13071500
_version_ 1783525206890905600
author Brunello, Giulia
Panda, Sourav
Schiavon, Lucia
Sivolella, Stefano
Biasetto, Lisa
Del Fabbro, Massimo
author_facet Brunello, Giulia
Panda, Sourav
Schiavon, Lucia
Sivolella, Stefano
Biasetto, Lisa
Del Fabbro, Massimo
author_sort Brunello, Giulia
collection PubMed
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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7177381
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71773812020-04-28 The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review Brunello, Giulia Panda, Sourav Schiavon, Lucia Sivolella, Stefano Biasetto, Lisa Del Fabbro, Massimo Materials (Basel) 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 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. MDPI 2020-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7177381/ /pubmed/32218290 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13071500 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Brunello, Giulia
Panda, Sourav
Schiavon, Lucia
Sivolella, Stefano
Biasetto, Lisa
Del Fabbro, Massimo
The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review
title The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review
title_full The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review
title_short The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review
title_sort impact of bioceramic scaffolds on bone regeneration in preclinical in vivo studies: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7177381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32218290
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13071500
work_keys_str_mv AT brunellogiulia theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT pandasourav theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT schiavonlucia theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT sivolellastefano theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT biasettolisa theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT delfabbromassimo theimpactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT brunellogiulia impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT pandasourav impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT schiavonlucia impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT sivolellastefano impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT biasettolisa impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview
AT delfabbromassimo impactofbioceramicscaffoldsonboneregenerationinpreclinicalinvivostudiesasystematicreview