Would you assign priority to clinical factors (localization or epidemiological parameters) or to the properties of the used substances (xenogenic, synthetic, allograft)?
Dear Hagen
These articles may be useful for you:
1) Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Mar;472(3):976-82. Adverse reactions of artificial bone graft substitutes: lessons learned from using tricalcium phosphate geneX®. Friesenbichler J, Maurer-Ertl W, Sadoghi P, Pirker-Fruehauf U, Bodo K, Leithner A. J
2)Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;82(8):e3. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2010.232371. Epub 2011 Mar 8. Dangers of bone graft substitutes: lessons from using GeneX. Saadoun S1, Macdonald C, Bell BA, Papadopoulos MC
3)Orthopedics. 2007 Nov;30(11):939-42.Calcium phosphates as bone graft extenders. Burger EL1, Patel V
Dear Nelson, does this mean, that you think that the properties of the biomaterial are more decisive than the location of application? In contrast to geneX most studies report good biocompatibility of filling materials (e.g. Bioss).
Certainly scaffold materials, immune modulators,VCAM1, growth factors, selected cytokines, interleukins, calcium ions, interacalating fibrous material and transcription factors and micro niche establishing environment will be needed.
Dear Hagen, let see the upcomming results of the CERTiFy study ;)
Hi Alexander, I am of course eagerly wait for this...Good luck, Hagen.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Epidemiology