中国组织工程研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (22): 3602-3608.doi: 10.12307/2022.292
• 生物材料综述 biomaterial review • 上一篇
李杜晨晖,田 艾,唐正龙
收稿日期:
2020-12-03
修回日期:
2021-01-27
接受日期:
2021-05-20
出版日期:
2022-08-08
发布日期:
2022-01-13
通讯作者:
唐正龙,博士,教授,主任医师,博士生导师,贵州医科大学附属口腔医院口腔颌面外科,贵州省贵阳市 550004
作者简介:
李杜晨晖,男,1993年生,贵州省贵阳市人,汉族,贵州医科大学在读硕士,医师,主要从事骨组织再生与骨免疫方面的研究。
基金资助:
Li Duchenhui, Tian Ai, Tang Zhenglong
Received:
2020-12-03
Revised:
2021-01-27
Accepted:
2021-05-20
Online:
2022-08-08
Published:
2022-01-13
Contact:
Tang Zhenglong, MD, Professor, Chief physician, Doctoral supervisor, School/Hospital of Stomatology of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550004, Guizhou Province, China
About author:
Li Duchenhui, Master candidate, Physician, School/Hospital of Stomatology of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550004, Guizhou Province, China
Supported by:
摘要:
文题释义:
骨稳态:健康的骨骼会持续不断的更新和重塑,包括破坏和形成细胞外骨骼基质等,使骨组织能够适应机械和生物刺激。由于体内平衡的控制,骨组织的吸收和形成过程是平衡的,并且骨骼的数量保持恒定。
骨免疫:骨形成的过程不是单一骨骼系统的参与调节,而是血液循环系统、免疫系统等多系统同时参与、相互串联相互影响的过程。成骨、破骨细胞和免疫细胞会通过两者间共有的调节通路相互影响。
背景:生物支架材料诱导建立的血管网络对于细胞存活和新骨形成是至关重要的。近年来,骨组织工程的学者们更多地关注了骨再生过程中不同支架材料对血管生成的影响。
目的:阐述能促进血管生成骨生物支架材料的特点及其在促血管化过程中的作用。
方法:由第一作者以“Osteogenesis、Biomaterials、bone defect、Angiogenesis、vascularization”为英文检索词,以“成骨分化、生物材料、骨缺损、血管生成、血管化”为中文检索词,检索 PubMed、知网数据库中 2016 至 2020 年已发表的相关文献,并进行筛选、归纳与总结,最终纳入 82篇相关文献进行综述。
结果与结论:支架材料植入后建立的早期血管网络能够提供足够的营养并运输代谢物质,如果局部血管网络形成缓慢造成血液供应缺乏,将导致成骨过程的延迟甚至无法形成新骨。研究人员通过改变支架材料理化性质、负载生长因子缓释系统、结合微量元素或模拟骨膜结构等方式对支架材料进行修饰,使其在诱导骨再生过程中能促进早期血管生成,有利于整个骨再生过程。但受限于当前制造技术及缺乏相关基础研究,目前生物支架材料更多在于对支架材料单一因素的改变进行研究。未来随着制造技术的提升及更多新型生物材料的研发,将制作出集多尺寸孔隙结构、微/纳米级多层级表面形貌为一体的生物支架材料,同时随着对体内骨再生过程中各生长因子分泌释放的精确性研究,以及对缓释、控释系统的精确把握,也将进一步提升生物支架材料的促血管生成作用。
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7058-2101 (李杜晨晖)
中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点:生物材料;骨生物材料; 口腔生物材料; 纳米材料; 缓释材料; 材料相容性;组织工程
中图分类号:
李杜晨晖, 田 艾, 唐正龙. 骨生物支架材料诱导的血管生成[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(22): 3602-3608.
Li Duchenhui, Tian Ai, Tang Zhenglong. Angiogenesis induced by bone bioscaffold materials[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2022, 26(22): 3602-3608.
[1] BALAGANGADHARAN K, DHIVYA S, SELVAMURUGAN N. Chitosan based nanofibers in bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;104(Pt B):1372-1382. [2] ALMUBARAK S, NETHERCOTT H, FREEBERG M, et al. Tissue engineering strategies for promoting vascularized bone regeneration. Bone. 2016; 83:197-209. [3] BATTISTON KG, CHEUNG JWC, JAIN D, et al. Biomaterials in co-culture systems: towards optimizing tissue integration and cell signaling within scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2014;35(15):4465-4476. [4] PARK M, KIM H, SONG KH, et al. Ultra-thin, aligned, free-standing nanofiber membranes to recapitulate multi-layered blood vessel/tissue interface for leukocyte infiltration study. Biomaterials. 2018;169:22-34. [5] CHEN Z, BACHHUKA A, HAN S, et al. Tuning Chemistry and Topography of Nanoengineered Surfaces to Manipulate Immune Response for Bone Regeneration Applications. ACS Nano. 2017;11(5):4494-4506. [6] ROH JD, SAWH-MARTINEZ R, BRENNAN MP, et al. Tissue-engineered vascular grafts transform into mature blood vessels via an inflammation-mediated process of vascular remodeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(10):4669-4674. [7] MALHEIRO V, LEHNER F, DINCA V, et al. Convex and concave micro-structured silicone controls the shape, but not the polarization state of human macrophages. Biomater Sci. 2016;4(11):1562-1573. [8] SINGH S, AWUAH D, ROSTAM HM, et al. Unbiased Analysis of the Impact of Micropatterned Biomaterials on Macrophage Behavior Provides Insights beyond Predefined Polarization States. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2017;3(6): 969-978. [9] WANG K, HOU WD, WANG X, et al. Overcoming foreign-body reaction through nanotopography: Biocompatibility and immunoisolation properties of a nanofibrous membrane. Biomaterials. 2016;102:249-258. [10] GULATI K, HAMLET SM, IVANOVSKI S. Tailoring the immuno-responsiveness of anodized nano-engineered titanium implants. J Mater Chem B. 2018;6(18):2677-2689. [11] PATEL KD, KIM TH, MANDAKHBAYAR N, et al. Coating biopolymer nanofibers with carbon nanotubes accelerates tissue healing and bone regeneration through orchestrated cell- and tissue-regulatory responses. Acta Biomater. 2020;108:97-110. [12] ZHAO C, WANG X, GAO L, et al. The role of the micro-pattern and nano-topography of hydroxyapatite bioceramics on stimulating osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Acta Biomater. 2018;73: 509-521. [13] JAGGY M, ZHANG P, GREINER AM, et al. Hierarchical Micro-Nano Surface Topography Promotes Long-Term Maintenance of Undifferentiated Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells. Nano Lett. 2015;15(10): 7146-7154. [14] YANG C, ZHAO C, WANG X, et al. Stimulation of osteogenesis and angiogenesis by micro/nano hierarchical hydroxyapatite via macrophage immunomodulation. Nanoscale. 2019;11(38):17699-17708. [15] BOBBERT FSL, ZADPOOR AA. Effects of bone substitute architecture and surface properties on cell response, angiogenesis, and structure of new bone. J Mater Chem B. 2017;5(31):6175-6192. [16] KIM SS, UTSUNOMIYA H, KOSKI JA, et al. Survival and function of hepatocytes on a novel three-dimensional synthetic biodegradable polymer scaffold with an intrinsic network of channels. Ann Surg. 1998; 228(1):8-13. [17] AMINI AR, ADAMS DJ, LAURENCIN CT, et al. Optimally porous and biomechanically compatible scaffolds for large-area bone regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A. 2012;18(13-14):1376-1388. [18] MARCOS-CAMPOS I, MAROLT D, PETRIDIS P, et al. Bone scaffold architecture modulates the development of mineralized bone matrix by human embryonic stem cells. Biomaterials. 2012;33(33):8329-8342. [19] MURPHY CM, HAUGH MG, O’BRIEN FJ. The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment, proliferation and migration in collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2010;31(3):461-466. [20] REINWALD Y, JOHAL RK, GHAEMMAGHAMI AM, et al. Interconnectivity and permeability of supercritical fluid-foamed scaffolds and the effect of their structural properties on cell distribution. Polymer. 2014;55(1): 435-444. [21] LIU X, WU S, YEUNG KEK, et al. Relationship between osseointegration and superelastic biomechanics in porous NiTi scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2011;32(2):330-338. [22] KIM K, DEAN D, WALLACE J, et al. The influence of stereolithographic scaffold architecture and composition on osteogenic signal expression with rat bone marrow stromal cells. Biomaterials. 2011;32(15):3750-3763. [23] SICCHIERI LG, CRIPPA GE, OLIVEIRA PT, et al. Pore size regulates cell and tissue interactions with PLGA-CaP scaffolds used for bone engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2012:6(2):155-162. [24] FENG B, JINKANG Z, ZHEN W, et al. The effect of pore size on tissue ingrowth and neovascularization in porous bioceramics of controlled architecture in vivo. Biomed Mater. 2011:6(1):015007. [25] DIAS MR, FERNANDES PR, GUEDES M, et al. Permeability analysis of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomech. 2012;45(6):938-944. [26] ZADPOOR AA. Bone tissue regeneration: the role of scaffold geometry. Biomater Sci. 2015;3(2):231-245. [27] YILGOR P, YILMAZ G, ONAL M B, et al. An in vivo study on the effect of scaffold geometry and growth factor release on the healing of bone defects. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2013;7(9):687-696. [28] BOBBERT FSL, ZADPOOR AA. Effects of bone substitute architecture and surface properties on cell response, angiogenesis, and structure of new bone. J Mater Chem B. 2017;5(31):6175-6192. [29] ZHANG Y, FAN W, MA Z, et al. The effects of pore architecture in silk fibroin scaffolds on the growth and differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells expressing BMP7. ACTA BIOMATER. 2010;6(8):3021-3028. [30] HAYASHI K, MUNAR ML, ISHIKAWA K. Effects of macropore size in carbonate apatite honeycomb scaffolds on bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C. 2020;111:110848. [31] LIU Y, YANG S, CAO L, et al. Facilitated vascularization and enhanced bone regeneration by manipulation hierarchical pore structure of scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C. 2020;110:110622. [32] DECKERS MML, MARCEL K, CHRIS VDB, et al. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factors and their receptors during osteoblast differentiation. Endocrinology. 2000;141(5):1667-1674. [33] FERRARA N, GERBER HP, LECOUTER J. The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nat Med. 2003;9(6):669-676. [34] LI J, XU T, HOU W, et al. The response of host blood vessels to graded distribution of macro-pores size in the process of ectopic osteogenesis. Mater Sci Eng C. 2020;109:110641. [35] BRUNELLO G, SIVOLELLA S, MENEGHELLO R, et al. Powder-based 3D printing for bone tissue engineering. Biotechnol Adv. 2016;34(5):740-753. [36] WANG X, XU S, ZHOU S, et al. Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: A review. Biomaterials. 2016;83:127-141. [37] ZAMANI Y, AMOABEDINY G, MOHAMMADI J, et al. 3D-printed poly(E-caprolactone) scaffold with gradient mechanical properties according to force distribution in the mandible for mandibular bone tissue engineering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020;104:103638. [38] LEE H, YANG GH, KIM M, et al. Fabrication of micro/nanoporous collagen/dECM/silk-fibroin biocomposite scaffolds using a low temperature 3D printing process for bone tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C. 2018;84:140-147. [39] LUO C, XIE R, ZHANG J, et al. Low temperature 3D printing of tissue cartilage engineered with gelatin methacrylamide. Issue Eng Part C Methods. 2020;26(6):306-316. [40] WANG Z, FLORCZYK SJ. Freeze-FRESH: A 3D Printing Technique to Produce Biomaterial Scaffolds with Hierarchical Porosity. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(2):354. [41] WANG C, LAI J, LI K, et al. Cryogenic 3D printing of dual-delivery scaffolds for improved bone regeneration with enhanced vascularization. Bioact Mater. 2021;6(1):137-145. [42] YUN HM, AHN SJ, PARK KR, et al. Magnetic nanocomposite scaffolds combined with static magnetic field in the stimulation of osteoblastic differentiation and bone formation. Biomaterials. 2016;85:88-98. [43] SAPIR Y, COHEN S, FRIEDMAN G, et al. The promotion of in vitro vessel-like organization of endothelial cells in magnetically responsive alginate scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2012;33(16):4100-4109. [44] FUHRER R, HOFMANN S, HILD N, et al. Pressureless Mechanical Induction of Stem Cell Differentiation Is Dose and Frequency Dependent. PloS One. 2013;8(11):1362. [45] HAO S, MENG J, ZHANG Y, et al. Macrophage phenotypic mechanomodulation of enhancing bone regeneration by superparamagnetic scaffold upon magnetization. Biomaterials. 2017;140:16-25. [46] RODELLA LF, BONAZZA V, LABANCA M, et al. A review of the effects of dietary silicon intake on bone homeostasis and regeneration. J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18(9):820-826. [47] REFFITT DM, OGSTON N, JUGDAOHSINGH R, et al. Orthosilicic acid stimulates collagen type 1 synthesis and osteoblastic differentiation in human osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Bone. 2003;32(2):127-135. [48] WIENS M, WANG X, SCHLOSSMACHER U, et al. Osteogenic potential of biosilica on human osteoblast-like (SaOS-2) cells. Calcif Tissue Int. 2010;87(6):513-524. [49] SUN JL, JIAO K, NIU LN, et al. Intrafibrillar silicified collagen scaffold modulates monocyte to promote cell homing, angiogenesis and bone regeneration. Biomaterials. 2017;113:203-216. [50] KUSUMBE AP, RAMASAMY SK, ADAMS RH. Coupling of angiogenesis and osteogenesis by a specific vessel subtype in bone. Nature. 2014; 507(7492):323-328. [51] RAMASAMY SK, KUSUMBE AP, WANG L, et al. Endothelial Notch activity promotes angiogenesis and osteogenesis in bone. Nature. 2014;507(7492):376-380. [52] SONG Y, WU H, GAO Y, et al. Zinc Silicate/Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Collagen Scaffolds Promote Angiogenesis and Bone Regeneration via the p38 MAPK Pathway in Activated Monocytes. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020;12(14):16058-16075. [53] MANUEL T, JOSÉ L GP, AIDA GC, et al. Novel non-resorbable polymeric-nanostructured scaffolds for guided bone regeneration. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(6):2037-2049. [54] OSORIO R, CARRASCO-CARMONA L, TOLEDANO M, et al. Ex vivo investigations on bioinspired electrospun membranes as potential biomaterials for bone regeneration. J Dent. 2020;98:103359. [55] CASTILLO-DALÍ G, CASTILLO-OYAGÜE R, TERRIZA A, et al. Pre-prosthetic use of poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) membranes treated with oxygen plasma and TiO2 nanocomposite particles for guided bone regeneration processes. J Dent. 2016;47:71-79. [56] TOLEDANO M, TOLEDANO-OSORIO M, OSORIO R, et al. Doxycycline and Zinc Loaded Silica-Nanofibrous Polymers as Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration. Polymers. 2020;12(5):1201. [57] PILMANE M, SALMA-ANCANE K, LOCA D, et al. Strontium and strontium ranelate: Historical review of some of their functions. Mater Sci Eng C. 2017;78:1222-1230. [58] YANG F, YANG D, TU J, et al. Strontium enhances osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells and in vivo bone formation by activating Wnt/catenin signaling. Stem Cells. 2011;29(6):981-991. [59] FROMIGUE O, HAY E, BARBARA A, et al. Calcium sensing receptor-dependent and receptor-independent activation of osteoblast replication and survival by strontium ranelate. J Cell Mol Med. 2009; 3(8B):2189-2199. [60] WANG X, WANG Y, LI L, et al. Stimulations of strontium-doped calcium polyphosphate for bone tissue engineering to protein secretion and mRNA expression of the angiogenic growth factors from endothelial cells in vitro. Ceram Int. 2014;40(5):6999-7005. [61] ZHAO S, ZHANG J, ZHU M, et al. Three-dimensional printed strontium-containing mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds for repairing rat critical-sized calvarial defects. Acta Biomater. 2015;12:270-280. [62] GU Z, XIE H, LI L, et al. Application of strontium-doped calcium polyphosphate scaffold on angiogenesis for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24(5):1251-1260. [63] MAO L, XIA L, CHANG J, et al. The synergistic effects of Sr and Si bioactive ions on osteogenesis, osteoclastogenesis and angiogenesis for osteoporotic bone regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2017;61:217-232. [64] ZHANG W, CAO H, ZHANG X, et al. A strontium-incorporated nanoporous titanium implant surface for rapid osseointegration. Nanoscale.2016;8(9):5291-5301. [65] ZHAO F, LEI B, LI X, et al. Promoting in vivo early angiogenesis with sub-micrometer strontium-contained bioactive microspheres through modulating macrophage phenotypes. Biomaterials. 2018;178:36-47. [66] KAIGLER D, SILVA EA, MOONEY DJ. Guided Bone Regeneration Using Injectable Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Delivery Gel. J Periodontol. 2013;84(2):230-238. [67] LI Y, FAN L, LIU S, et al. The promotion of bone regeneration through positive regulation of angiogenic–osteogenic coupling using microRNA-26a. Biomaterials. 2013;34(21):5048-5058. [68] AHLFELD T, AKKINENI AR, FORSTER Y, et al. Design and Fabrication of Complex Scaffolds for Bone Defect Healing: Combined 3D Plotting of a Calcium Phosphate Cement and a Growth Factor-Loaded Hydrogel. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(1):224-236. [69] SPILLER K, NASSIRI S, WITHEREL CE, et al. Sequential delivery of immunomodulatory cytokines to facilitate the M1-to-M2 transition of macrophages and enhance vascularization of bone scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2015;37:194-207. [70] SPILLER KL, ANFANG RR, SPILLER KJ, et al. The role of macrophage phenotype in vascularization of tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2014;35(15):4477-4488. [71] DENG Y, JIANG C, LI C, et al. 3D printed scaffolds of calcium silicate-doped beta-TCP synergize with co-cultured endothelial and stromal cells to promote vascularization and bone formation. Sci Rep.2017;7(1):5588. [72] LI T, PENG M, YANG Z, et al. 3D-printed IFN-gamma-loading calcium silicate-beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffold sequentially activates M1 and M2 polarization of macrophages to promote vascularization of tissue engineering bone. Acta Biomater. 2018;71:96-107. [73] TANG W, YU Y, WANG J, et al. Enhancement and orchestration of osteogenesis and angiogenesis by a dual-modular design of growth factors delivery scaffolds and 26SCS decoration. Biomaterials. 2020; 232:119645. [74] LIANG Z, LUO Y, LV Y. Mesenchymal stem cell-derived microvesicles mediate BMP2 gene delivery and enhance bone regeneration. J Mater Chem B. 2020;8(30):6378-6389. [75] WU L, GU Y, LIU L, et al. Hierarchical micro/nanofibrous membranes of sustained releasing VEGF for periosteal regeneratio. Biomaterials. 2020;227:119555. [76] LIN X, ZHAO C, ZHU P, et al. Periosteum Extracellular‐Matrix‐Mediated Acellular Mineralization during Bone Formation. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018;7(4):1700660. [77] CHEN K, LIN X, ZHANG Q, et al. Decellularized periosteum as a potential biologic scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2015;19:46-55. [78] LOVATI AB, MARTA B, MATTEO M. Decellularized and Engineered Tendons as Biological Substitutes: A Critical Review. Stem Cells Int. 2016;2016:7276150. [79] SALDIN LT, CRAMER MC, VELANKAR SS, et al. Extracellular matrix hydrogels from decellularized tissues: Structure and function. Acta Biomater. 2017;49:1-15. [80] SPANG MT, CHRISTMAN KL. Extracellular matrix hydrogel therapies: In vivo applications and development. Acta Biomater. 2018;68:1-14. [81] QIU P, LI M, CHEN K, et al. Periosteal matrix-derived hydrogel promotes bone repair through an early immune regulation coupled with enhanced angio- and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2020;227:119552. [82] LIU W, BI W, SUN Y, et al. Biomimetic organic-inorganic hybrid hydrogel electrospinning periosteum for accelerating bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2020;110:110670. |
[1] | 薛亚东, 周新社, 裴立家, 孟繁宇, 李 键, 王金子. 自体髂骨块联合钛板重建Paprosky Ⅲ型髋臼骨缺损为假体提供坚强的初始固定#br#[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(9): 1424-1428. |
[2] | 姚晓玲, 彭建城, 许岳荣, 杨志东, 张顺聪. 可变角度零切迹前路椎间融合内固定系统治疗脊髓型颈椎病:30个月随访[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(9): 1377-1382. |
[3] | 王 景, 熊 山, 曹 金, 冯林伟, 王 信. 白细胞介素3在骨代谢中的作用及机制[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(8): 1260-1265. |
[4] | 安维政, 何 萧, 任 帅, 刘建宇. 肌源干细胞在周围神经再生中的潜力[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(7): 1130-1136. |
[5] | 张璟琳, 冷 敏, 朱博恒, 汪 虹. 干细胞源外泌体促进糖尿病创面愈合的机制及应用[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(7): 1113-1118. |
[6] | 吴玮玥, 郭晓东, 包崇云. 工程化外泌体在骨修复再生中的应用[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(7): 1102-1106. |
[7] | 周洪琴, 吴丹丹, 杨 琨, 刘 琪. 传递特定miRNA的外泌体可调控成骨并促进成血管[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(7): 1107-1112. |
[8] | 杨 峰, 赵 骞, 张世轩, 赵铁男, 冯 博. 雷帕霉素联合CD133抗体支架预防血管再狭窄的有效性和安全性[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 579-584. |
[9] | 陈晓旭, 罗雅馨, 毕浩然, 杨 琨. 脱细胞支架制备及其在组织工程和再生医学中的应用[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 591-596. |
[10] | 康坤龙, 王新涛. 生物支架材料促进骨髓间充质干细胞成骨分化的研究热点[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 597-603. |
[11] | 沈佳华, 付 勇. 基于石墨烯的纳米材料可否在干细胞领域应用[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 604-609. |
[12] | 王阮彬, 程丽乾, 陈 凯. 高分子材料在3D打印生物骨骼及支架中的应用与价值[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 610-616. |
[13] | 张 通, 蔡金池, 袁志发, 赵海燕, 韩兴文, 王文己. 基于透明质酸的复合水凝胶修复骨关节炎软骨损伤:应用与机制[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 617-625. |
[14] | 李 辉, 陈良龙. 植骨材料在脊柱结核治疗中的应用与特征[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 626-630. |
[15] | 高仓健, 杨 振, 刘舒云, 李 浩, 付力伟, 赵天元, 陈 威, 廖志垚, 李品学, 眭 翔, 郭全义. 静电纺丝技术在肩袖损伤修复中的应用[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 637-642. |
文题释义:
骨稳态:健康的骨骼会持续不断的更新和重塑,包括破坏和形成细胞外骨骼基质等,使骨组织能够适应机械和生物刺激。由于体内平衡的控制,骨组织的吸收和形成过程是平衡的,并且骨骼的数量保持恒定。
骨免疫:骨形成的过程不是单一骨骼系统的参与调节,而是血液循环系统、免疫系统等多系统同时参与、相互串联相互影响的过程。成骨、破骨细胞和免疫细胞会通过两者间共有的调节通路相互影响。
生物支架材料诱导建立的血管网络对于细胞存活和新骨形成是至关重要的,该文通过搜索近五年生物支架材料促进血管生成相关研究文献,总结归纳目前主流的生物支架材料优化策略包括改变支架材料理化性质、负载生长因子缓释系统、结合微量元素或模拟骨膜结构等方式;集中讨论各类策略的优缺点及其在血管生成中的作用。
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||