Histological and Biological Response to Different Types of Biomaterials: A Narrative Single Research Center Experience over Three Decades

Margherita Tumedei, Eitan Mijiritsky, Carlos Fernando Mourão, Adriano Piattelli, Marco Degidi, Carlo Mangano and Giovanna Iezzi
Additional contact information
Margherita Tumedei: Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milano, 20122 Milano, Italy
Eitan Mijiritsky: Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv 64239, Israel
Carlos Fernando Mourão: Clinical Research Unit of the Antonio Pedro Hospital, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi 24033-900, Brazil
Adriano Piattelli: Retrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undemineralized Hard Tissue Histology, University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
Marco Degidi: Independent Researcher, 40100 Bologna, Italy
Carlo Mangano: Independent Researcher, Gravedona, 22100 Como, Italy
Giovanna Iezzi: Retrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undemineralized Hard Tissue Histology, University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 13, 1-27

Abstract: Background: In more than three decades of work of the Retrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undemineralized Hard Tissue Histology of the University of Chieti-Pescara in Italy, many types of biomaterials were received and evaluated. The present retrospective review aimed to evaluate the histological and biological aspects of the evaluated bone substitute biomaterials. Methods: In the present study, the authors prepared a retrospective analysis after the screening of some databases (PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE) to find papers published from the Retrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undermineralized Hard Tissue Histology of the University of Chieti-Pescara analyzing only the papers dealing with bone substitute biomaterials and scaffolds, in the form of granules and block grafts, for bone regeneration procedures. Results: Fifty-two articles were found, including in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies of different biomaterials. These articles were evaluated and organized in tables for a better understanding. Conclusions: Over three decades of studies have made it possible to assess the quality of many bone substitute biomaterials, helping to improve the physicochemical and biological properties of the biomaterials used in daily clinical practice.

Keywords: bone substitutes; grafts; scaffolds; tissue engineering (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/7942/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/7942/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:13:p:7942-:d:850918

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().