Development of Composite Scaffolds for Load-Bearing Segmental Bone Defects

Table 7

Summary of the in vivo preclinical studies reviewed in which hybrid scaffolds were tested.

(a)  

Author, year	Ceramic material	Polymeric material	Animal choice	Anatomical choice	Length of study	Time points	Sample size	Defect size	Scaffold size	Control
Cao and Kuboyama, 2010 [46]	β-TCP	PGA	Sprague-Dawley rats	Femur; Medial epicondyle	12 weeks	0, 14, 30, and 90 days	5/time points/group	3 mm diameter; 2 mm depth	N/A	(+) HAp; (−) no implant
Chu et al., 2007 [72]	TCP	PPF	Long Evans rats	Femur	15 weeks	6 and 15 weeks	4 or 7/time point/group	5 mm	OD: 4 mm—ID: 2 mm; Height 5 mm	No BMP
Jegoux et al., 2008 [73]	BCaP	Collagen	New Zealand white rabbit and beagle dogs	Femur	18 weeks	18 weeks	6 rabbits, 6 dogs	20 mm	5×5×5 mm
Guda et al., 2011 [74]	HAp		New Zealand white rabbit	Radial diaphysis	8 weeks	4 and 8 weeks	12/time point/group	10 mm		(+) autograft; (−) no implant
Ignatius et al., 2001 [75]	β-TCP	PLA	Merino sheep	Tibia	8 weeks	6, 12, and 24 months	6/time point/group	N/A	24 mm length, 14 mm wide, 6 mm thick	(+) TCP; (−) autograft
Jayabalan et al., 2010 [76]	HAp	HT-PPFhm	Rabbit	Femur	48 weeks	12, 24, and 48 weeks	2/time point	4 mm diameter; 2 mm depth	N/A	(−) no implant
Lickorish et al., 2007 [77]	TTCP and DCPA	PLGA	Wistar rats	Femur	2 weeks	2 weeks	N/A	2.3 mm diameter	2 mm diameter	PLGA; scaffold
Rai et al., 2010 [78]	TCP	PCL	CBH/Rnu rats	Femur	3 weeks	3 weeks	6/time point	8 mm	8 mm high, 4 mm diameter	(−) non-seeded
Xu et al., 2011 [25]	Bioglass	Collagen-phosphatidylserine	Sprague-Dawley rats	Femur	6 weeks	3 day, 3 and 6 weeks	3/time point/group	3.5 mm diameter; 4.5 mm diameter	N/A	No phosphatidylserine

(b)  

Author, year	Type of testing	Type of histology	Histological parameters analyzed	μ-CT parameters analyzed	Mechanical testing
Cao and Kuboyama, 2010 [46]	μ-CT, bone mineral density (new bone quantity), histology, and biodegradation	Decalcified histology	Area of material in defect, new bone volume/total volume percent material biodegradation	Bone reformation	No
Chu et al., 2007 [72]	Radiograph, μ-CT, and histology	MMC histology	New bone formation	Callus and scaffold volumetric bone mineral density	Four-point bending
Jegoux et al., 2008 [73]	Polarized Light; μ-CT, SEM	Glycol methacrylate	Used thick histology sections for observation under poler	Bioceramic, newly formed bone at the center, and superior and inferior quarter of the implant	No
Guda et al., 2011 [74]	Radiograph, μ-CT, histology	MMC histology	Mineralized bone, fibrous tissue	Bone regeneration patterns, bone density, bone growth profiles, and overall bone volume	Four-point bending
Ignatius et al., 2001 [75]	Mechanical, histology	Undecalcified histology	New bone formation, new soft tissue formation, remaining implant components	No	Compression of 5×5×3 mm cubes
Jayabalan et al., 2010 [76]	Histology	Resin histology	Foreign body giant cell, bone growth	No	No
Lickorish et al., 2007 [77]	Histology	Decalcified histology	Fibrous tissue formation, bone ingrowth, foreign body reaction	No	No
Rai et al., 2010 [78]	Radiograph, μ-CT, histology	Decalcified histology	Presence of fibroblasts, chondrocytes, woven bone	New bone formation	No
Xu et al., 2011 [25]	Histology; radiography	Decalcified histology	Inflammatory reaction, new bone formation, scaffold resorption	No	No