Table 7 |
||
| Advantages and disadvantages of synthetic biomaterials used in bone tissue engineering | ||
| Biomaterial | Advantages | Disadvantages |
| Calcium phosphates (e.g. HA, TCP, and biphase CaP) | (1) Excellent biocompatibility | (1) Brittle |
| (2) Supporting cell activity | ||
| (3) Good osteoconductivity | (2) They biodegrade too slowly in the crystalline state and are mechanically too weak in the amorphous state. | |
| Na-containing silicate bioactive glasses | (1) Excellent biocompatibility | (1) Mechanically brittle and weak at the amorphous state |
| (2) Supporting cell activity | ||
| (3) Good osteoconductivity | ||
| (4) Vasculature | ||
| (5) Rapid gene expression | ||
| (6) Tailorable degradation rate | ||
| (7) Tailorable mechanical strength via sintering, and the issue associated with strength and degradation could be addressed | ||
| Borate bioactive glasses | (1) Tailorable degradation rate | (1) Risk of toxicity due to the release of borate ions |
| (2) Tailorable mechanical strength | ||
| Bioactive glass ceramics (e.g., A-W) | (1) Excellent biocompatibility | (1) Brittle |
| (2) Supporting cell activity | ||
| (3) Good osteoconductivity | (2) Slow degradation rate | |
| Bulk biodegradable polymers | ||
| Poly(lactic acid) | (1) Good biocompatibility | (1) Inflammation caused by acid degradation products. |
| (2) Biodegradable (with a wide range of degradation rates) | ||
| Poly(glycolic acid) | (3) Bioresorbable | |
| Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) | (4) Good processability | (2) Accelerated degradation rates cause collapse of scaffolds. |
| Poly(propylene fumarate) | (5) Good ductility | |
| Poly(polyol sebacate) | (6) Elasticity | |
| Surface bioerodible polymers | ||
| Poly(ortho esters) | (1) Good biocompatibility | (1) Not completely replaced by new bone tissue |
| Poly(anhydrides) | (2) Retention of mechanical integrity over the degradative lifetime of the device | |
| Poly(phosphazene) | (3) Significantly enhanced bone ingrowth into the porous scaffolds, owing to the increment in pore size | |
| Composites (containing bioactive phases) | (1) Excellent biocompatibility | (1) Still not as good as natural bone matrix |
| (2) Supporting cell activity | ||
| (3) Good osteoconductivity | ||
| (4) Tailorable degradation rate | (2) Fabrication techniques need to be improved. | |
| (5) Improved mechanical reliability | ||
Chen et al. Progress in Biomaterials 2012 1:2 doi:10.1186/2194-0517-1-2
