Injectable and thermo-sensitive PEG-PCL-PEG copolymer/collagen/n-HA hydrogel composite for guided bone regeneration

Fu, Shaozhi; Ni, PeiYan; Wang, BeiYu; Chu, Bingyang; Zheng, Lan; Luo, Feng; Luo, Jingcong; Zhang, Qian

doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.040

Cited by 245 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although these injectable materials are not yet suitable for load-bearing orthopedic applications due to their low inherent compressive strengths and stiffnesses, which do not exceed 6 and 10 MPa in terms of compressive strength and modulus, respectively, and so are significantly below those of PMMA and CPCs (Figure 3), some have been identified for potential use in bone tissue repair as a carrier for the delivery of growth factors, drugs and cells directly to the defect site in order to enhance the growth of new bone ( Table 2). Most of the gels indicated in Table 2 have been shown to support the growth and osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells [29,[68][69][70] and also in vivo new bone tissue formation in rabbit models [71]. Furthermore, the gels possess interconnected microporous structures that are initially filled with water or other liquid molecules at the time of injection, which can then subsequently act as in situ porous channels for efficient nutrient and waste transfer during the bone regeneration process [72].…”

Section: Gel-based Injectable Systems Based On In Situ Polymer Cross-mentioning

confidence: 98%

Nanomaterials: The Next Step in Injectable Bone Cements

Roohani‐Esfahani

Zreiqat

2014

Nanomedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injectable bone cements (IBCs) are biocompatible materials that can be used as bone defect fillers in maxillofacial surgeries and in orthopedic fracture treatment in order to augment weakened bone due to osteoporosis. Current clinically available IBCs, such as polymethylmethacrylate and calcium phosphate cement, have certain advantages; however, they possess several drawbacks that prevent them from gaining universal acceptance. New gel-based injectable materials have also been developed, but these are too mechanically weak for load-bearing applications. Recent research has focused on improving various injectable materials using nanomaterials in order to render them suitable for bone tissue regeneration. This article outlines the requirements of IBCs, the advantages and limitations of currently available IBCs and the state-of-the-art developments that have demonstrated the effects of nanomaterials within injectable systems.

show abstract

Section: Gel-based Injectable Systems Based On In Situ Polymer Cross-mentioning

confidence: 98%

Nanomaterials: The Next Step in Injectable Bone Cements

Roohani‐Esfahani

Zreiqat

2014

Nanomedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This limitation has been largely overcome by introducing PCL, a biodegradable crystalline macromolecule. 223 PCL segments can arrange into a structure with a high degree of crystallization and tends to harden into the gel gradually as incubation time increases. Thus, PEG-PCL diblock, triblock, and multiblock copolymers have been developed using biodegradable PCL in the PLGA segments.…”

Section: Peg and Pclmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…304 Multiple-arm PEG-PNIPAM copolymers form hydrogels via a physical cross-linking mechanism, whereas diblock copolymers interact through a micellar aggregation mechanism. PNIPAM can be modified by acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, and sodium-2-methylpropyl sulfonate, 223,226 which confer polyelectrolyte properties. These PNIPAM derivatives can also make in situ-forming hydrogels via electrostatic interactions, as previously described.…”

Section: Peg and Poly(n-isopropylacrylamide)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimuli-Responsive InjectableIn situ-Forming Hydrogels for Regenerative Medicines

Kim

Kwon

et al. 2015

Polymer Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on injectable in situ-forming hydrogels has been conducted in diverse biomedical applications for a long period. These hydrogels exhibit sol-to-gel phase transition in accordance with the external stimuli such as temperature change. Also, unlike the traditional surgical procedures the hydrogels have the distinct properties of easy management and minimal invasiveness via simple aqueous state injections at target sites. Currently, numerous polymer materials have been reported as potential stimulusinduced in situ-forming hydrogels. In this review, a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art of these rapidly developing materials has been outlined. In situ-forming hydrogels formed by electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions as well as their mechanistic characteristics and biomedical applications in regenerative medicine have also been discussed. The review concludes with perspectives on the future of stimulus-induced in situ-forming hydrogels.

show abstract

“…Copolymer added with PEG-PCL-PEG , collagen and nano hydroxyapatite Although the composite is better at regeneration than the self-healing process, they do not address how the individual components of their copolymer contribute to this effect [166,167].…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Graft Substitutes for Bone Defect Regeneration. A Collective Review

Kheirallah¹,

Almeshaly²

2016

IJDOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this review article is to illustrate the current state of development of bone graft substitutes that could be used for bone defect regeneration, as well as to analyze their efficacy for clinical use. Methods: An electronic search of the PubMed, was performed for articles written in English. The focused question was "ideal graft substitute material to choose in clinical practice"?. The searches were limited to articles including: bone graft, bone defect scaffold, bone substitutes, and bone regeneration. An attempt was made to identify clinical studies. During the data collection, the data were extracted from the studies including scaffold material, properties and advantages of bone substitutes, as well as clinical results if the study has been provided clinically. Results: In spite of several acceptable scaffold options available for bone regeneration, these options still need to bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. There is little information available about the cellular basis for bone regeneration in humans. Several problems limit the broad usage of such options, including lack of randomized controlled human studies, and dubious long term results. Conclusion:The studies should be nurtured and monitored by a combination of clinical experience. Future trends may focus on the effective combinations of osteoinductive materials, osteoinductive growth factors and cell-based tissue regeneration tactics using composite carriers. There is no single ideal graft material to choose in clinical practice, therefore researches are ongoing in all relevant fields, to establish modern bone regeneration protocols that may lead to the innovation of ideal graft substitutes.

show abstract

Injectable and thermo-sensitive PEG-PCL-PEG copolymer/collagen/n-HA hydrogel composite for guided bone regeneration

Cited by 245 publications

References 38 publications

Nanomaterials: The Next Step in Injectable Bone Cements

Nanomaterials: The Next Step in Injectable Bone Cements

Stimuli-Responsive InjectableIn situ-Forming Hydrogels for Regenerative Medicines

Bone Graft Substitutes for Bone Defect Regeneration. A Collective Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About