Review on material parameters to enhance bone cell function in vitro and in vivo

Bone plays critical roles in support, protection, movement, and metabolism. Although bone has an innate capacity for regeneration, this capacity is limited, and many bone injuries and diseases require intervention. Biomaterials are a critical component of many treatments to restore bone function and include non-resorbable implants to augment bone and resorbable materials to guide regeneration. Biomaterials can vary considerably in their biocompatibility and bioactivity, which are functions of specific material parameters. The success of biomaterials in bone augmentation and regeneration is based on their effects on the function of bone cells. Such functions include adhesion, migration, inflammation, proliferation, communication, differentiation, resorption, and vascularization. This review will focus on how different material parameters can enhance bone cell function both in vitro and in vivo.

Bioinspired systems: A new upcoming research master program at Yachay Tech University in Ecuador

Throughout history, people use different types of biomaterials to repair or replace damaged human tissues. Ancient Egyptians used golden wires to replace the missing teeth; Ancient Mayans used nacre or mother of pearl to achieve the same goal 1, 2. Fast forward to the 20th century; Sir Ridley used Perspex as the material for intraocular lenses 1. Many surgeons pioneered using synthetic polymeric membranes as the material for kidney dialyzers 1. The modern time of biomaterials has come. Science, instead of try-and-error, has been developed to study biomaterials systematically. Professor Larry Hench, who is the inventor of Bioglass©, came up a classification of three generations of biomaterials, starting from bioinert materials to bioactive materials, to the combining of bioactive materials and resorbable materials 3.

Aktualne poglądy na temat leczenia złamań wyrostka kłykciowego żuchwy

ABSTRACTThe aim of this review was to present and discuss current views on the treatment of condylar fractures (CFs). The authors addressed the following issues: the etiology, epidemiology and mechanisms of CFs; strategies and methods for the treatment of CFs. Moreover, the choice of surgical approach for the open treatment of CFs as well as techniques and materials used for fixation of CF are discussed.The PubMed database was used to search for relevant articles published between 2000 and 2018. The analysis referred to both original and review papers (including meta-analyses) that concerned adult patients. There are still differences in opinions among researchers regarding the choice of appropriate treatment – closed or open. There is no consensus among open treatment supporters in choosing the right surgical approach. The important question is which material to choose for osteosynthesis of the condylar fracture.Recent studies show satisfactory results in terms of stability of condylar osteosynthesis with the use of 3D plates. Further discussion is required on the choice of material for fixation of the condylar fracture and, in particular, on the possibility of using resorbable materials.

Comparison of different three dimensional-printed resorbable materials: In vitro biocompatibility, In vitro degradation rate, and cell differentiation support

Biodegradable materials play a crucial role in both material and medical sciences and are frequently used as a primary commodity for implants generation. Due to their material inherent properties, they are supposed to be entirely resorbed by the patients' body after fulfilling their task as a scaffold. This makes a second intervention (e.g. for implant removal) redundant and significantly enhances a patient’s post-operative life quality. At the moment, materials for resorbable and biodegradable implants (e.g. polylactic acid or poly-caprolactone polymers) are still intensively studied. They are able to provide mandatory demands such as mechanical strength and attributes needed for high-quality implants. Implants, however, not only need to be made of adequate material, but must also to be personalized in order to meet the customers’ needs. Combining three dimensional-printing and high-resolution imaging technologies a new age of implant production comes into sight. Three dimensional images (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) of tissue defects can be utilized as digital blueprints for personalized implants. Modern additive manufacturing devices are able to use a variety of materials to fabricate custom parts within short periods of time. The combination of high-quality resorbable materials and personalized three dimensional-printing for the custom application will provide the patients with the best suitable and sustainable implants. In this study, we evaluated and compared four resorbable and three dimensional printable materials for their in vitro biocompatibility, in vitro rate of degradation, cell adherence and behavior on these materials as well as support of osteogenic differentiation of human adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. The tests were conducted with model constructs of 1 cm2 surface area fabricated with fused deposition modeling three dimensional-printing technology.

Is Mineral Trioxide Aggregate a Bioceramic?

Bioceramics are a subset of biomaterials and define ceramic materials, which are biocompatible. The range of biocompatibility is wide from totally inert materials to fully resorbable materials that are fully replaced with time. The first mention of Bioceramics in Endodontics referred to a study on a new material Bioaggregate, which was developed as a replacement for mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) boasting a Portland cement free formulation. But is MTA a bioceramic?.