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.

The impact of bioceramic scaffolds on bone regeneration in preclinical in vivo studies : a systematic review / G. Brunello, S. Panda, L. Schiavon, S. Sivolella, L. Biasetto, M. Del Fabbro. - In: MATERIALS. - ISSN 1996-1944. - 13:7(2020 Apr), pp. 1500.1-1500.28. [10.3390/ma13071500]

The impact of bioceramic scaffolds on bone regeneration in preclinical in vivo studies : a systematic review

S. Panda;M. Del Fabbro
Ultimo
2020

Abstract

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.
Animal study; Bioceramic; Bone grafting; Critical-sized bone defect; Scaffold
Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche
Settore MED/50 - Scienze Tecniche Mediche Applicate
apr-2020
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
materials-13-01500.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 589.62 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
589.62 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/744364
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 36
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 28
social impact