Scaffolds--The Ground for Regeneration: A Narrative Review
The aim of this study was to comprehensively review the various biomaterials used as scaffolds, rates of biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite hybrid scaffolds, and the role of controlled biodegradability in tissue engineering. An electronic search for systematic review was conducted...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry 2020-11, Vol.10 (6), p.692-699 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 699 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 692 |
| container_title | Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry |
| container_volume | 10 |
| creator | Joshi, Sourabh Ramesh Pendyala, Gowri Swaminatham Shah, Pratima Mopagar, Viddyasagar Prabhakar Padmawar, Neeta Padubidri, Meghana |
| description | The aim of this study was to comprehensively review the various biomaterials used as scaffolds, rates of biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite hybrid scaffolds, and the role of controlled biodegradability in tissue engineering.
An electronic search for systematic review was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane (www.cochrane.org), Scopus (www.scopus.com) databases, and dental journals related to endodontics and pediatric dentistry to identify the research investigations associated with the degradation profiles, factors relating to degradation, rates of biodegradability and the role of controlled biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite scaffolds. A sample of 17 relevant studies and case reports were identified in our search of 100 using simple random sampling.
Naturally derived scaffolds degrade at a much higher rate than artificial and composite scaffolds. The degradation profiles of composite scaffolds can be much better controlled than naturally derived scaffolds.
Composite scaffolds are more favorable as compared to natural or artificial scaffolds, as it has superior mechanical properties, minimal immune response, and a controlled rate of degradation and consequent tissue regeneration. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_198_20 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7791577</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2532720562</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-e9b2a09456eb7ac4b524aab07c4813887c821074e2b0ddfbc536e2f0cae772123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUF1PwkAQvBiNEOQfGNPE5-J99a7lwYSgIoaoEXy-XK9bKIEe3lGM_942IJF92d3MzuxkELomuMcJZnfLwm9M1nsZT9-HD4oksaL4DLUpjXBIMKbnzcxIiKWgLdT1fonrEjFPpLhELcY4kxKTNupPjc5zu8p8GM4WEIycrcosyK0LPmAOJTi9LWzZDwbBq3bNsoMa2RXwfYUucr3y0D30Dvp8epwNn8PJ22g8HExCw4TYhpCkVOOERwJSqQ1PI8q1TrE0PCYsjqWJKcGSA01xluWpiZgAmmOjQUpKKOug-73upkrXkBkot06v1MYVa-1-lNWFOkXKYqHmdqekTEgkZS1wexBw9qsCv1VLW7my9qxoxKikOBLNG76_Ms567yA_fiBYNaGrfejqJPSadvPf3ZH0FzH7BUZyf9M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2532720562</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Scaffolds--The Ground for Regeneration: A Narrative Review</title><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Medknow Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Joshi, Sourabh Ramesh ; Pendyala, Gowri Swaminatham ; Shah, Pratima ; Mopagar, Viddyasagar Prabhakar ; Padmawar, Neeta ; Padubidri, Meghana</creator><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Sourabh Ramesh ; Pendyala, Gowri Swaminatham ; Shah, Pratima ; Mopagar, Viddyasagar Prabhakar ; Padmawar, Neeta ; Padubidri, Meghana</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to comprehensively review the various biomaterials used as scaffolds, rates of biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite hybrid scaffolds, and the role of controlled biodegradability in tissue engineering.
An electronic search for systematic review was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane (www.cochrane.org), Scopus (www.scopus.com) databases, and dental journals related to endodontics and pediatric dentistry to identify the research investigations associated with the degradation profiles, factors relating to degradation, rates of biodegradability and the role of controlled biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite scaffolds. A sample of 17 relevant studies and case reports were identified in our search of 100 using simple random sampling.
Naturally derived scaffolds degrade at a much higher rate than artificial and composite scaffolds. The degradation profiles of composite scaffolds can be much better controlled than naturally derived scaffolds.
Composite scaffolds are more favorable as compared to natural or artificial scaffolds, as it has superior mechanical properties, minimal immune response, and a controlled rate of degradation and consequent tissue regeneration.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2231-0762</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2250-1002</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_198_20</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33437701</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Biodegradability ; Biomaterials ; Case reports ; Degradation ; Dental restorative materials ; Dentistry ; Immune response ; Mechanical properties ; Pediatrics ; Review ; Reviews ; Statistical sampling ; Tissue engineering</subject><ispartof>Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry, 2020-11, Vol.10 (6), p.692-699</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2020 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Copyright: © 2020 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-e9b2a09456eb7ac4b524aab07c4813887c821074e2b0ddfbc536e2f0cae772123</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7791577/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7791577/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27923,27924,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33437701$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Sourabh Ramesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pendyala, Gowri Swaminatham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Pratima</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mopagar, Viddyasagar Prabhakar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padmawar, Neeta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padubidri, Meghana</creatorcontrib><title>Scaffolds--The Ground for Regeneration: A Narrative Review</title><title>Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry</title><addtitle>J Int Soc Prev Community Dent</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to comprehensively review the various biomaterials used as scaffolds, rates of biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite hybrid scaffolds, and the role of controlled biodegradability in tissue engineering.
An electronic search for systematic review was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane (www.cochrane.org), Scopus (www.scopus.com) databases, and dental journals related to endodontics and pediatric dentistry to identify the research investigations associated with the degradation profiles, factors relating to degradation, rates of biodegradability and the role of controlled biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite scaffolds. A sample of 17 relevant studies and case reports were identified in our search of 100 using simple random sampling.
Naturally derived scaffolds degrade at a much higher rate than artificial and composite scaffolds. The degradation profiles of composite scaffolds can be much better controlled than naturally derived scaffolds.
Composite scaffolds are more favorable as compared to natural or artificial scaffolds, as it has superior mechanical properties, minimal immune response, and a controlled rate of degradation and consequent tissue regeneration.</description><subject>Biodegradability</subject><subject>Biomaterials</subject><subject>Case reports</subject><subject>Degradation</subject><subject>Dental restorative materials</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Immune response</subject><subject>Mechanical properties</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Statistical sampling</subject><subject>Tissue engineering</subject><issn>2231-0762</issn><issn>2250-1002</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpVUF1PwkAQvBiNEOQfGNPE5-J99a7lwYSgIoaoEXy-XK9bKIEe3lGM_942IJF92d3MzuxkELomuMcJZnfLwm9M1nsZT9-HD4oksaL4DLUpjXBIMKbnzcxIiKWgLdT1fonrEjFPpLhELcY4kxKTNupPjc5zu8p8GM4WEIycrcosyK0LPmAOJTi9LWzZDwbBq3bNsoMa2RXwfYUucr3y0D30Dvp8epwNn8PJ22g8HExCw4TYhpCkVOOERwJSqQ1PI8q1TrE0PCYsjqWJKcGSA01xluWpiZgAmmOjQUpKKOug-73upkrXkBkot06v1MYVa-1-lNWFOkXKYqHmdqekTEgkZS1wexBw9qsCv1VLW7my9qxoxKikOBLNG76_Ms567yA_fiBYNaGrfejqJPSadvPf3ZH0FzH7BUZyf9M</recordid><startdate>20201101</startdate><enddate>20201101</enddate><creator>Joshi, Sourabh Ramesh</creator><creator>Pendyala, Gowri Swaminatham</creator><creator>Shah, Pratima</creator><creator>Mopagar, Viddyasagar Prabhakar</creator><creator>Padmawar, Neeta</creator><creator>Padubidri, Meghana</creator><general>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Wolters Kluwer - Medknow</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201101</creationdate><title>Scaffolds--The Ground for Regeneration: A Narrative Review</title><author>Joshi, Sourabh Ramesh ; Pendyala, Gowri Swaminatham ; Shah, Pratima ; Mopagar, Viddyasagar Prabhakar ; Padmawar, Neeta ; Padubidri, Meghana</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-e9b2a09456eb7ac4b524aab07c4813887c821074e2b0ddfbc536e2f0cae772123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Biodegradability</topic><topic>Biomaterials</topic><topic>Case reports</topic><topic>Degradation</topic><topic>Dental restorative materials</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Immune response</topic><topic>Mechanical properties</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Statistical sampling</topic><topic>Tissue engineering</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Sourabh Ramesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pendyala, Gowri Swaminatham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Pratima</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mopagar, Viddyasagar Prabhakar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padmawar, Neeta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padubidri, Meghana</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Joshi, Sourabh Ramesh</au><au>Pendyala, Gowri Swaminatham</au><au>Shah, Pratima</au><au>Mopagar, Viddyasagar Prabhakar</au><au>Padmawar, Neeta</au><au>Padubidri, Meghana</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Scaffolds--The Ground for Regeneration: A Narrative Review</atitle><jtitle>Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Int Soc Prev Community Dent</addtitle><date>2020-11-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>692</spage><epage>699</epage><pages>692-699</pages><issn>2231-0762</issn><eissn>2250-1002</eissn><abstract>The aim of this study was to comprehensively review the various biomaterials used as scaffolds, rates of biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite hybrid scaffolds, and the role of controlled biodegradability in tissue engineering.
An electronic search for systematic review was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane (www.cochrane.org), Scopus (www.scopus.com) databases, and dental journals related to endodontics and pediatric dentistry to identify the research investigations associated with the degradation profiles, factors relating to degradation, rates of biodegradability and the role of controlled biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite scaffolds. A sample of 17 relevant studies and case reports were identified in our search of 100 using simple random sampling.
Naturally derived scaffolds degrade at a much higher rate than artificial and composite scaffolds. The degradation profiles of composite scaffolds can be much better controlled than naturally derived scaffolds.
Composite scaffolds are more favorable as compared to natural or artificial scaffolds, as it has superior mechanical properties, minimal immune response, and a controlled rate of degradation and consequent tissue regeneration.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</pub><pmid>33437701</pmid><doi>10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_198_20</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2231-0762 |
| ispartof | Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry, 2020-11, Vol.10 (6), p.692-699 |
| issn | 2231-0762 2250-1002 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7791577 |
| source | PubMed Central Open Access; Medknow Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
| subjects | Biodegradability Biomaterials Case reports Degradation Dental restorative materials Dentistry Immune response Mechanical properties Pediatrics Review Reviews Statistical sampling Tissue engineering |
| title | Scaffolds--The Ground for Regeneration: A Narrative Review |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T18%3A04%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Scaffolds--The%20Ground%20for%20Regeneration:%20A%20Narrative%20Review&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20International%20Society%20of%20Preventive%20&%20Community%20Dentistry&rft.au=Joshi,%20Sourabh%20Ramesh&rft.date=2020-11-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=692&rft.epage=699&rft.pages=692-699&rft.issn=2231-0762&rft.eissn=2250-1002&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_198_20&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2532720562%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2532720562&rft_id=info:pmid/33437701&rfr_iscdi=true |