4.5 Article

Functional Augmentation of Naturally-Derived Materials for Tissue Regeneration

期刊

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 555-567

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-014-1192-4

关键词

Naturally-derived; Natural polymer; Protein-based; Native extracellular matrix (ECM); Tissue regeneration; Augmentation; Structural; Biofunctional

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [T32 EB006343] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM008433] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tissue engineering strategies have utilized a wide spectrum of synthetic and naturally-derived scaffold materials. Synthetic scaffolds are better defined and offer the ability to precisely and reproducibly control their properties, while naturally-derived scaffolds typically have inherent biological and structural properties that may facilitate tissue growth and remodeling. More recently, efforts to design optimized biomaterial scaffolds have blurred the line between these two approaches. Naturally-derived scaffolds can be engineered through the manipulation of intrinsic properties of the pre-existing backbone (e.g., structural properties), as well as the addition of controllable functional components (e.g., biological properties). Chemical and physical processing techniques used to modify structural properties of synthetic scaffolds have been tailored and applied to naturally-derived materials. Such strategies include manipulation of mechanical properties, degradation, and porosity. Furthermore, biofunctional augmentation of natural scaffolds via incorporation of exogenous cells, proteins, peptides, or genes has been shown to enhance functional regeneration over endogenous response to the material itself. Moving forward, the regenerative mode of action of naturally-derived materials requires additional investigation. Elucidating such mechanisms will allow for the determination of critical design parameters to further enhance efficacy and capitalize on the full potential of naturally-derived scaffolds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据