How Does Bone Repair Itself Internally

Review
Open Access
Published: 31 May 2022

Os regeneration: current concepts and futurity directions

BMC Medicine volume 9, Article number:66 (2011) Cite this commodity

127k Accesses
899 Citations
26 Altmetric
Metrics details

Abstract

Bone regeneration is a circuitous, well-orchestrated physiological process of bone germination, which tin can be seen during normal fracture healing, and is involved in continuous remodelling throughout developed life. However, there are complex clinical conditions in which bone regeneration is required in large quantity, such as for skeletal reconstruction of large bone defects created by trauma, infection, neoplasm resection and skeletal abnormalities, or cases in which the regenerative process is compromised, including avascular necrosis, atrophic not-unions and osteoporosis. Currently, there is a plethora of different strategies to augment the dumb or 'insufficient' bone-regeneration process, including the 'aureate standard' autologous bone graft, free fibula vascularised graft, allograft implantation, and use of growth factors, osteoconductive scaffolds, osteoprogenitor cells and lark osteogenesis. Improved 'local' strategies in terms of tissue engineering and gene therapy, or even 'systemic' enhancement of bone repair, are under intense investigation, in an effort to overcome the limitations of the electric current methods, to produce bone-graft substitutes with biomechanical backdrop that are as identical to normal os as possible, to advance the overall regeneration process, or even to address systemic conditions, such equally skeletal disorders and osteoporosis.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Bone possesses the intrinsic capacity for regeneration equally function of the repair process in response to injury, as well as during skeletal development or continuous remodelling throughout adult life [1, 2]. Bone regeneration is comprised of a well-orchestrated series of biological events of bone consecration and conduction, involving a number of cell types and intracellular and extracellular molecular-signalling pathways, with a definable temporal and spatial sequence, in an effort to optimise skeletal repair and restore skeletal function [2, 3]. In the clinical setting, the most common form of bone regeneration is fracture healing, during which the pathway of normal fetal skeletogenesis, including intramembranous and endochondral ossification, is recapitulated [four]. Different in other tissues, the majority of bony injuries (fractures) heal without the formation of scar tissue, and bone is regenerated with its pre-existing backdrop largely restored, and with the newly formed os being eventually duplicate from the adjacent uninjured os [2]. However, there are cases of fracture healing in which bone regeneration is impaired, with, for example, up to xiii% of fractures occurring in the tibia being associated with delayed spousal relationship or fracture non-union [5]. In addition, at that place are other weather condition in orthopaedic surgery and in oral and maxillofacial surgery in which bone regeneration is required in large quantity (beyond the normal potential for cocky-healing), such as for skeletal reconstruction of large os defects created by trauma, infection, neoplasm resection and skeletal abnormalities, or cases in which the regenerative process is compromised, including avascular necrosis and osteoporosis.

Current clinical approaches to enhance os regeneration

For all the aforementioned cases in which the normal process of os regeneration is either dumb or simply insufficient, in that location are currently a number of treatment methods available in the surgeon's armamentarium, which can exist used either alone or in combination for the enhancement or management of these complex clinical situations, which tin can often be recalcitrant to treatment, representing a medical and socioeconomic challenge. Standard approaches widely used in clinical practice to stimulate or augment bone regeneration include distraction osteogenesis and bone transport [half-dozen, 7], and the use of a number of different bone-grafting methods, such as autologous bone grafts, allografts, and bone-graft substitutes or growth factors [viii, nine]. An alternative method for bone regeneration and reconstruction of long-bone defects is a two-stage procedure, known as the Masquelet technique. Information technology is based on the concept of a "biological" membrane, which is induced after application of a cement spacer at the beginning phase and acts equally a 'bedchamber' for the insertion of non-vascularised autograft at the second stage [10]. There are even non-invasive methods of biophysical stimulation, such every bit low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) and pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) [11–13], which are used equally adjuncts to enhance bone regeneration.

During distraction osteogenesis and os send, bone regeneration is induced betwixt the gradually distracted osseous surfaces. A variety of methods are currently used to treat bone loss or limb-length discrepancies and deformities, including external fixators and the Ilizarov technique [vi, 7], combined unreamed intramedullary nails with external monorail distraction devices [14], or intramedullary lengthening devices [15]. However, these methods are technically enervating and take several disadvantages, including associated complications, requirement for lengthy handling for both the lark (one mm per mean solar day) and the consolidation catamenia (usually twice the lark phase), and effects on the patient's psychology and well-existence [6, vii].

Bone grafting is a commonly performed surgical procedure to augment bone regeneration in a variety of orthopaedic and maxillofacial procedures, with autologous bone beingness considered every bit the 'golden standard' bone-grafting textile, as information technology combines all properties required in a bone-graft material: osteoinduction (os morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) and other growth factors), osteogenesis (osteoprogenitor cells) and osteoconduction (scaffold) [16]. It can also exist harvested every bit a tricortical graft for structural support [16], or as a vascularised os graft for restoration of large bone defects [17] or avascular necrosis [xviii]. A diverseness of sites can be used for os-graft harvesting, with the anterior and posterior iliac crests of the pelvis being the unremarkably used donor sites. Recently, with the development of a new reaming system, the reamer-irrigator-aspirator (RIA), initially developed to minimise the adverse effects of reaming during nailing of long-bone fractures, the intramedullary culvert of long bones has been used as an culling harvesting site, providing a big volume of autologous os graft [19]. Furthermore, because it is the patient'due south own tissue, autologous bone is histocompatible and not-immunogenic, reducing to a minimum the likelihood of immunoreactions and transmission of infections. Nevertheless, harvesting requires an additional surgical procedure, with well-documented complications and discomfort for the patient, and has the additional disadvantages of quantity restrictions and substantial costs [20–22].

An culling is allogeneic bone grafting, obtained from human being cadavers or living donors, which bypasses the bug associated with harvesting and quantity of graft material. Allogeneic bone is available in many preparations, including demineralised bone matrix (DBM), morcellised and cancellous chips, corticocancellous and cortical grafts, and osteochondral and whole-bone segments, depending on the recipient site requirements. Their biological properties vary, simply overall, they possess reduced osteoinductive backdrop and no cellular component, because donor grafts are devitalised via irradiation or freeze-drying processing [23]. In that location are problems of immunogenicity and rejection reactions, possibility of infection transmission, and cost [8, 23].

Bone-graft substitutes have likewise been developed every bit alternatives to autologous or allogeneic bone grafts. They consist of scaffolds made of synthetic or natural biomaterials that promote the migration, proliferation and differentiation of bone cells for os regeneration. A wide range of biomaterials and synthetic bone substitutes are currently used as scaffolds, including collagen, hydroxyapatite (HA), β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) and calcium-phosphate cements, and glass ceramics [viii, 23], and the research into this field is ongoing. Particularly for reconstruction of large bone defects, for which at that place is a need for a substantial structural scaffold, an alternative to massive cortical auto- or allografts is the use of cylindrical metallic or titanium mesh cages as a scaffold combined with cancellous bone allograft, DBM or autologous bone [24, 25].

Limitations of current strategies to raise bone regeneration

Near of the current strategies for bone regeneration showroom relatively satisfactory results. Withal, there are associated drawbacks and limitations to their utilise and availability, and fifty-fifty controversial reports well-nigh their efficacy and toll-effectiveness. Furthermore, at present in that location are no heterologous or synthetic bone substitutes available that have superior or even the aforementioned biological or mechanical properties compared with bone. Therefore, there is a necessity to develop novel treatments every bit alternatives or adjuncts to the standard methods used for bone regeneration, in an endeavor to overcome these limitations, which has been a goal for many decades. Even dorsum in the 1950s, Professor Sir Charnley, a pioneer British orthopaedic surgeon, stated that 'practically all classical operations of surgery have now been explored, and unless some revolutionary discovery is fabricated which will put the control of osteogenesis in the surgeon's power, no groovy advance is likely to come up from modification of their detail' [26].

Since then, our understanding of bone regeneration at the cellular and molecular level has avant-garde enormously, and is still ongoing. New methods for studying this process, such as quantitative three-dimensional microcomputed tomography analyses, finite element modelling, and nanotechnology have been developed to further evaluate the mechanical properties of bone regenerate at the microscopic level. In addition, advances made in cellular and molecular biological science have immune detailed histological analyses, in vitro and in vivo characterisation of bone-forming cells, identification of transcriptional and translational profiles of the genes and proteins involved in the procedure of bone regeneration and fracture repair, and development of transgenic animals to explore the role of a number of genes expressed during os repair, and their temporal and tissue-specific expression patterns [27]. With the ongoing research in all related fields, novel therapies accept been used equally adjuncts or alternatives to traditional bone-regeneration methods. Nevertheless, the basic concept for managing all clinical situations requiring os regeneration, particularly the complex and recalcitrant cases, remains the same, and must be applied. Treatment strategies should aim to address all (or those that require enhancement) prerequisites for optimal bone healing, including osteoconductive matrices, osteoinductive factors, osteogenic cells and mechanical stability, following the 'diamond concept' suggested for fracture healing (Figure 1) [28].

BMPs and other growth factors

With improved agreement of fracture healing and os regeneration at the molecular level [29], a number of key molecules that regulate this complex physiological process accept been identified, and are already in clinical use or under investigation to enhance bone repair.

Of these molecules, BMPs have been the most extensively studied, as they are potent osteoinductive factors. They induce the mitogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and other osteoprogenitors, and their differentiation towards osteoblasts. Since the discovery of BMPs, a number of experimental and clinical trials have supported the safety and efficacy of their employ as osteoinductive os-graft substitutes for bone regeneration. With the use of recombinant DNA applied science, BMP-two and BMP-seven have been licensed for clinical use since 2002 and 2001 respectively [thirty]. These 2 molecules have been used in a variety of clinical conditions including not-union, open fractures, joint fusions, aseptic os necrosis and critical os defects [nine]. Extensive research is ongoing to develop injectable formulations for minimally invasive application, and/or novel carriers for prolonged and targeted local delivery [31].

Other growth factors as well BMPs that have been implicated during bone regeneration, with different functions in terms of cell proliferation, chemotaxis and angiogenesis, are likewise being investigated or are currently being used to augment bone repair [32, 33], including platelet-derived growth gene, transforming growth factor-β, insulin-like growth factor-ane, vascular endothelial growth cistron and fibroblast growth factor, among others [29]. These have been used either lone or in combinations in a number of in vitro and in vivo studies, with controversial results [32, 33]. One electric current approach to enhance os regeneration and soft-tissue healing past local application of growth factors is the use of platelet-rich plasma, a volume of the plasma fraction of autologous blood with platelet concentrations above baseline, which is rich in many of the aforementioned molecules [34].

'Orthobiologics' and the overall concept to stimulate the local 'biology' by applying growth factors (especially BMPs, because these are the virtually potent osteoinductive molecules) could exist advantageous for bone regeneration or even for acceleration of normal bone healing to reduce the length of fracture handling. Their clinical apply, either solitary or combined with bone grafts, is constantly increasing. Nonetheless, at that place are several issues most their use, including safety (considering of the supraphysiological concentrations of growth factors needed to obtain the desired osteoinductive furnishings), the high price of treatment, and more chiefly, the potential for ectopic bone formation [35].

Currently BMPs are likewise existence used in bone-tissue engineering, but several issues need to be further examined, such as optimum dosage and provision of a sustained, biologically advisable concentration at the site of os regeneration, and the use of a 'cocktail' of other growth factors that take shown meaning promising results in preclinical and early clinical investigation [32] or even the use of inhibitory molecules in an effort to mimic the endogenous 'normal' growth-factor production. Nanoparticle technology seems to be a promising approach for optimum growth-factor commitment in the future of os-tissue applied science [36]. Nevertheless, attributable to gaps in the current understanding of these factors, it has not been possible to reproduce in vivo bone regeneration in the laboratory.

MSCs

An adequate supply of cells (MSCs and osteoprogenitors) is of import for efficient bone regeneration. The current arroyo of delivering osteogenic cells direct to the regeneration site includes apply of os-marrow aspirate from the iliac crest, which also contains growth factors. Information technology is a minimally invasive procedure to raise bone repair, and produces satisfactory results [37]. Nevertheless, the concentration and quality of MSCs may vary significantly, depending on the individual (especially in older people) [38, 39], the aspiration sites and techniques used [39], and whether further concentration of the bone marrow has been performed [37], every bit bone-marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) is considered to be an constructive product to augment bone grafting and support bone regeneration [40, 41]. Overall, however, there are significant ongoing issues with quality command with respect to delivering the requisite number of MSCs/osteoprogenitors to effect adequate repair responses [40].

Problems of quantity and alternative sources of MSCs are existence extensively investigated. Novel approaches in terms of cell harvesting, in vitro expansion and subsequent implantation are promising [42–44], because in vitro expansion can generate a large number of progenitor cells. Nonetheless, such techniques add substantial cost and risks (such as contagion with bacteria or viruses), may reduce the proliferative capacity of the cells and are time-consuming requiring ii-stage surgery [45]. This strategy is already applied for cartilage regeneration [46]. Alternative sources of cells, which are less invasive, such as peripheral blood [47] and mesenchymal progenitor cells from fat [48], muscle, or even traumatised muscle tissue subsequently debridement [49], are also nether extensive research. Still, the utility of fatty-derived MSCs for bone-regeneration applications is debatable, with some studies showing them to be inferior to bone-marrow-derived MSCs in animal models [50, 51], and the evidence for a clinically relevant or meaningful population of circulating MSCs too remains very contentious [52].

It is off-white to say that the part of MSCs in fracture repair is all the same in its infancy, largely due to a lack of studies into the biology of MSCs in vivo in the fracture environs. This to a large extent relates to the historical perceived rarity of 'in vivo MSCs' and as well to a lack of knowledge about in vivo phenotypes. The in vivo phenotype of bone-marrow MSCs has been recently reported [53] and, even more recently, it has been shown that this population was actually fairly abundant in vivo in normal and pathological bone [54]. This knowledge opens up novel approaches for the characterisation and molecular profiling of MSCs in vivo in the fracture surroundings. This could exist used to ultimately meliorate outcomes of fracture not-union based on the biology of these key MSC reparative cells.

Scaffolds and bone substitutes

Although they lack osteoinductive or osteogenic properties, synthetic bone substitutes and biomaterials are already widely used in clinical practice for osteoconduction. DBM and collagen are biomaterials, used mainly as bone-graft extenders, every bit they provide minimal structural back up [viii]. A large number of synthetic os substitutes are currently available, such as HA, β-TCP and calcium-phosphate cements, and drinking glass ceramics [8, 23]. These are being used equally adjuncts or alternatives to autologous os grafts, equally they promote the migration, proliferation and differentiation of bone cells for bone regeneration. Especially for regeneration of large os defects, where the requirements for grafting material are substantial, these synthetics can be used in combination with autologous bone graft, growth factors or cells [8]. Furthermore, there are also non-biological osteoconductive substrates, such as fabricated biocompatible metals (for example, porous tantalum) that offer the potential for absolute control of the concluding structure without whatsoever immunogenicity [viii].

Enquiry is ongoing to ameliorate the mechanical properties and biocompatibility of scaffolds, to promote osteoblast adhesion, growth and differentiation, and t0 allow vascular ingrowth and bone-tissue formation. Improved biodegradable and bioactive three-dimensional porous scaffolds [55] are being investigated, as well equally novel approaches using nanotechnology, such as magnetic biohybrid porous scaffolds acting as a crosslinking agent for collagen for os regeneration guided by an external magnetic field [56], or injectable scaffolds for easier application [57].

Tissue technology

The tissue-technology approach is a promising strategy added in the field of os regenerative medicine, which aims to generate new, jail cell-driven, functional tissues, rather than only to implant non-living scaffolds [58]. This alternative treatment of conditions requiring bone regeneration could overcome the limitations of electric current therapies, by combining the principles of orthopaedic surgery with cognition from biology, physics, materials science and technology, and its clinical application offers great potential [58, 59]. In essence, os-tissue engineering combines progenitor cells, such as MSCs (native or expanded) or mature cells (for osteogenesis) seeded in biocompatible scaffolds and ideally in 3-dimensional tissue-similar structures (for osteoconduction and vascular ingrowth), with advisable growth factors (for osteoinduction), in order to generate and maintain bone [lx]. The need for such improved blended grafts is obvious, especially for the management of large bone defects, for which the requirements for grafting material are substantial [8]. Now, composite grafts that are available include os constructed or bioabsorbable scaffolds seeded with os-marrow aspirate or growth factors (BMPs), providing a competitive alternative to autologous bone graft [8].

Several major technical advances accept been accomplished in the field of bone-tissue engineering science during the by decade, peculiarly with the increased understanding of os healing at the molecular and cellular level, assuasive the conduction of numerous animal studies and of the beginning pilot clinical studies using tissue-engineered constructs for local os regeneration. To date, seven human studies accept been conducted using civilisation-expanded, non-genetically modified MSCs for regeneration of os defects: two studies reporting on long bones and five on maxillofacial conditions [61]. Even though they are rather heterogeneous studies and it is difficult to depict conclusive show from them, bone apposition by the grafted MSCs was seen, but it was not sufficient to span big os defects. Furthermore, the tissue-engineering approach has been used to accelerate the fracture-healing procedure or to augment the bone-prosthesis interface and forestall aseptic loosening in total joint arthroplasty, with promising results regarding its efficacy and safety [62, 63].

Recently, an animal study has shown the potential for prefabrication of vascularised bioartificial bone grafts in vivo using β-TCP scaffolds intraoperatively filled with autogenous bone marrow for cell loading, and implanted into the latissimus dorsi musculus for potential application at a later phase for segmental bone reconstruction, introducing the principles of os transplantation with minimal donor-site morbidity and no quantity restrictions [64].

Overall, os-tissue technology is in its infancy, and in that location are many issues of efficacy, prophylactic and toll to be addressed earlier general clinical application can be achieved. Cultured-expanded cells may have mutations or epigenetic changes that could confer a tumour-forming potential [44]. However, in vitro and in vivo testify suggests that the risk of tumour formation is minimal [65]. No cases of neoplasm transformation were reported in 41 patients (45 joints) after autologous bone-marrow-derived MSC transplantation for cartilage repair, who were followed for up to 11 years and five months [46]. Another important upshot is the difficulty of achieving an effective and high-density prison cell population within three-dimensional biodegradable scaffolds [66]. Consequently, numerous bioreactor technologies have been investigated, and many others should be developed [67]. Their degradation properties should also preserve the wellness of local tissues and the continuous remodelling of bone [44]. Three-dimensional porous scaffolds with specific architectures at the nano, micro and macro scale for optimum surface porosity and chemistry, which enhance cellular attachment, migration, proliferation and differentiation, are undergoing a continuous evaluation process.

Gene therapy

Some other promising method of growth-cistron delivery in the field of bone-tissue engineering is the awarding of gene therapy [68, 69]. This involves the transfer of genetic textile into the genome of the target cell, allowing expression of bioactive factors from the cells themselves for a prolonged time. Cistron transfer can be performed using a viral (transfection) or a non-viral (transduction) vector, and by either an in vivo or ex vivo gene-transfer strategy. With the in vivo method, which is technically relatively easier, the genetic material is transferred straight into the host; nevertheless, there are safety concerns with this approach. The indirect ex vivo technique requires the drove of cells by tissue harvest, and their genetic modification in vitro before transfer back into the host. Although technically more demanding, it is a safer method, allowing testing of the cells for whatsoever abnormal behaviour before reimplantation, and selection of those with the highest gene expression [69].

Besides the issues of cost, efficacy and biological safety that need to be answered before this strategy of genetic manipulation is applied in humans, delivery of growth factors, especially BMPs, using cistron therapy for bone regeneration has already produced promising results in animal studies [70, 71].

Mechanical stability and the office of mechanical stimulation in bone regeneration

In addition to the intrinsic potential of bone to regenerate and to the same methods used to enhance bone regeneration, adequate mechanical stability by diverse means of stabilisation and use of fixation devices is also an important element for optimal bone repair, peculiarly in challenging cases involving large os defects or impaired bone healing. The mechanical environment constitutes the 4th factor of the 'diamond concept' of fracture healing, along with osteoconductive scaffolds, growth factors and osteogenic cells, interacting during the repair procedure [28].

During bone regeneration, intermediate tissues, such as fibrous connective tissue, cartilage and woven bone, precede final os germination, providing initial mechanical stability and a scaffold for tissue differentiation. The mechanical loading affects the regeneration process, with different stress distribution favouring or inhibiting differentiation of detail tissue phenotypes [72]. Loftier shear strain and fluid flows are idea to stimulate germination of fibrous connective tissue, whereas lower levels stimulate germination of cartilage, and fifty-fifty lower levels favour ossification [72].

The interfragmentary strain concept of Perren has been used to describe the dissimilar patterns of bone repair (main or secondary fracture healing), suggesting that the strain that causes healthy bone to fail is the upper limit that can be tolerated for the regenerating tissue [73]. Since so, extensive inquiry on this field has farther refined the effects of mechanical stability and mechanical stimulation on os regeneration and fracture healing [74]. Numerous in vivo studies accept shown contradictory results regarding the contribution of strain and mechanical stimulation, in terms of compression or distraction, in bone formation during fracture healing. In early fracture healing, mechanical stimulation seems to enhance callus germination, only the amount of callus formation does non represent to stiffness [74]. During the initial stages of bone healing, a less rigid mechanical environment resulted in a prolonged chondral bone regeneration stage, whereas the process of intramembranous ossification appeared to be independent of mechanical stability [75]. By contrast, a more rigid mechanical environment resulted in a smaller callus and a reduced fibrous-tissue component [76]. For subsequently stages of bone regeneration, lower mechanical stability was constitute to inhibit callus bridging and stiffness [74]. Finally, in vitro studies have also shown the role of the mechanical environment on different cell types involved in bone regeneration. It has been demonstrated using cell-civilisation systems that the different cellular responses in terms of proliferation and differentiation after mechanical stimulation depend on the strain magnitude and the cell phenotype [74].

Mechanical stability is also important for local vascularisation and angiogenesis during os regeneration. In an in vivo study, it was shown that smaller interfragmentary movements led to the formation of a greater number of vessels inside the callus, particularly in areas close to the periosteum, compared with larger movements [77], whereas increased interfragmentary shear was associated with reduced vascularisation with a higher amount of fibrous-tissue formation and a lower percentage of mineralised bone during early bone healing [78].

Finally, the presence of a mechanically stable environment throughout the os-regeneration process is also essential when boosted methods are being used to enhance os repair [28, 79]. Optimal instrumentation with minimal disruption of the local claret supply is required to supplement and protect the mechanical properties of the implanted grafts or scaffolds to allow incorporation, vascularisation and subsequent remodelling [79].

Systemic enhancement of os regeneration

As an culling to local augmentation of the os-regeneration procedure, the use of systemic agents, including growth hormone (GH) [eighty] and parathyroid hormone (PTH) [81] is also nether extensive inquiry. Current evidence suggests a positive role for GH in fracture healing, merely there are issues virtually its safety profile and optimal dose, when systemically administered to enhance bone repair [80]. At that place are too numerous animal studies and clinical trials showing that intermittent PTH administration induces both cancellous and cortical os regeneration, enhances os mass, and increases mechanical bone strength and bone-mineral density, with a relatively satisfactory safety profile [81, 82]. Currently, two PTH analogues, PTH one-34 (or teriparitide) and PTH 1-84, are already used in clinical practice as anabolic agents for the treatment of osteoporosis [81, 83], and research is being carried out into their off-characterization use as os-forming agents in complex conditions requiring enhancement of os repair, such as complicated fractures and non-unions.

In addition to the anabolic agents for bone regeneration, current antiresorptive therapies that are already in clinical utilise for the direction of osteoporosis could exist used to increase bone-mineral density during os regeneration and remodelling by reducing os resorption. Biphosphonates, known to reduce the recruitment and activeness of osteoclasts and increase their apoptosis, and strontium ranelate, known to inhibit bone resorption and stimulate os formation, could be benign adjuncts to bone repair by altering bone turnover [84]. In add-on, a new pharmaceutical agent called denosumab, which is a fully human monoclonal antibody designed to target receptor activator of nuclear gene-κB ligand (RANKL), a protein that selectively inhibits osteoclastogenesis, might not only decrease bone turnover and increase bone-mineral density in osteoporosis, simply also indirectly improve bone regeneration in other conditions requiring enhancement [85].

Recently, another signalling pathway, the Wnt pathway, was found to play a function in bone regeneration [86]. Impaired Wnt signalling is associated with osteogenic pathologies, such as osteoporosis and osteopenia. Thus, novel strategies that systemically induce the Wnt signalling pathway or inhibit its antagonists, such as sclerostin, can improve bone regeneration. Notwithstanding, there are concerns about carcinogenesis [87].

Another arroyo for systemic enhancement of bone regeneration is the employ of agonists of the prostaglandin receptors EP2 and EP4, which were establish to be skeletally anabolic at cortical and cancellous sites. Promising results have been seen in fauna models, without adverse effects, and therefore these receptors may represent novel anabolic agents for the handling of osteoporosis and for augmentation of bone healing [27].

Finally, new treatments for systemic augmentation of bone regeneration may come to low-cal while researchers are trying to elucidate the alterations seen at the cellular and molecular level in conditions with increased os formation capacity. Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, a rare genetic disorder, is an example of how an aberrant metabolic condition can be viewed every bit show for systemic regeneration of big amounts of os secondary to alterations inside the BMP signalling pathway [88], and may betoken unique treatment potentials.

Conclusions

In that location are several clinical conditions that require enhancement of bone regeneration either locally or systemically, and various methods are currently used to broaden or accelerate bone repair, depending on the healing potential and the specific requirements of each case. Knowledge of bone biology has vastly expanded with the increased understanding at the molecular level, resulting in development of many new treatment methods, with many others (or improvements to current ones) anticipated in the years to come. However, in that location are still gaps; in particular, there is still surprisingly little information available virtually the cellular ground for MSC-mediated fracture repair and bone regeneration in vivo in humans. Further understanding in this surface area could be the key to an improved and integrated strategy for skeletal repair.

In the future, control of bone regeneration with strategies that mimic the normal cascade of bone formation will offer successful management of conditions requiring enhancement of bone regeneration, and reduce their morbidity and toll in the long term. Research is ongoing within all relevant fields, and information technology is hoped that many bone-illness processes secondary to trauma, bone resection due to ablative surgery, ageing, and metabolic or genetic skeletal disorders volition be successfully treated with novel bone-regeneration protocols that may address both local and systemic enhancement to optimise outcome.

References

Bates P, Ramachandran One thousand: Os injury, healing and grafting. Basic Orthopaedic Sciences. The Stanmore Guide. Edited by: Ramachandran One thousand. 2007, London: Hodder Arnold, 123-134.

Google Scholar
Einhorn TA: The cell and molecular biology of fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998, 355 (Suppl): S7-21.

PubMed Google Scholar
Cho TJ, Gerstenfeld LC, Einhorn TA: Differential temporal expression of members of the transforming growth gene beta superfamily during murine fracture healing. J Bone Miner Res. 2002, 17: 513-520. ten.1359/jbmr.2002.17.three.513.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ferguson C, Alpern E, Miclau T, Helms JA: Does developed fracture repair restate embryonic skeletal formation?. Mech Dev. 1999, 87: 57-66. x.1016/S0925-4773(99)00142-2.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Audigé L, Griffin D, Bhandari M, Kellam J, Rüedi TP: Path analysis of factors for delayed healing and nonunion in 416 operatively treated tibial shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005, 438: 221-232.

PubMed Google Scholar
Aronson J: Limb-lengthening, skeletal reconstruction, and os transport with the Ilizarov method. J Os Articulation Surg Am. 1997, 79 (eight): 1243-1258.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Green SA, Jackson JM, Wall DM, Marinow H, Ishkanian J: Management of segmental defects by the Ilizarov intercalary bone send method. Clin Orthop Relat Re. 1992, 280: 136-142.

Google Scholar
Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis Due east: Bone substitutes: an update. Injury. 2005, 36 (Suppl three): S20-27.

PubMed Google Scholar
Giannoudis PV, Einhorn TA: Bone morphogenetic proteins in musculoskeletal medicine. Injury. 2009, xl (Suppl 3): S1-3.

Google Scholar
Masquelet AC, Begue T: The concept of induced membrane for reconstruction of long bone defects. Orthop Clin Northward Am. 2010, 41 (1): 27-37. x.1016/j.ocl.2009.07.011.

PubMed Google Scholar
Busse JW, Bhandari M, Kulkarni AV, Tunks E: The effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy on time to fracture healing: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2002, 166 (iv): 437-441.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Schofer Md, Block JE, Aigner J, Schmelz A: Improved healing response in delayed unions of the tibia with depression-intensity pulsed ultrasound: results of a randomized sham-controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010, 11: 229-10.1186/1471-2474-11-229.

PubMed PubMed Key Google Scholar
Walker NA, Denegar CR, Preische J: Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic field in the treatment of tibial fractures: a systematic review. J Athl Railroad train. 2007, 42 (4): 530-535.

PubMed PubMed Fundamental Google Scholar
Raschke M, Oedekoven G, Ficke J, Claudi BF: The monorail method for segment bone transport. Injury. 1993, 24 (Suppl 2): S54-61.

PubMed Google Scholar
Cole JD, Justin D, Kasparis T, DeVlught D, Knobloch C: The intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor (ISKD): first clinical results of a new intramedullary nail for lengthening of the femur and tibia. Injury. 2001, 32 (Suppl four): 129-139.

Google Scholar
Bauer TW, Muschler GF: Bone graft materials. An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000, 371: ten-27.

PubMed Google Scholar
Pederson WC, Person DW: Long os reconstruction with vascularized bone grafts. Orthop Clin N Am. 2007, 38 (i): 23-35. 10.1016/j.ocl.2006.10.006.

PubMed Google Scholar
Korompilias AV, Beris AE, Lykissas MG, Kostas-Agnantis IP, Soucacos PN: Femoral caput osteonecrosis: Why choose free vascularized fibula grafting. Microsurgery. 2010.

Google Scholar
Giannoudis PV, Tzioupis C, Light-green J: Surgical techniques: how I do it? The reamer/irrigator/aspirator (RIA) system. Injury. 2009, forty (eleven): 1231-1236. ten.1016/j.injury.2009.07.070.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ahlmann E, Patzakis M, Roidis N, Shepherd Fifty, Holtom P: Comparison of anterior and posterior iliac crest bone graft in terms of harvest-site morbidity and functional outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002, 84 (5): 716-720. 10.1302/0301-620X.84B5.12571.

PubMed Google Scholar
St John TA, Vaccaro AR, Sah AP, Schaefer M, Berta SC, Albert T, Hilibrand A: Physical and budgetary costs associated with autogenous bone graft harvesting. Am J Orthop. 2003, 32 (1): 18-23.

PubMed Google Scholar
Younger EM, Chapman MW: Morbidity at os graft donor sites. J Orthop Trauma. 1989, 3 (3): 192-195. 10.1097/00005131-198909000-00002.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Finkemeier CG: Bone-grafting and bone-graft substitutes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002, 84 (3): 454-464.

PubMed Google Scholar
Bullens PH, Bart Schreuder HW, de Waal Malefijt MC, Verdonschot North, Buma P: Is an impacted morselized graft in a cage an alternative for reconstructing segmental diaphyseal defects?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009, 467 (3): 783-791. 10.1007/s11999-008-0686-five.

PubMed PubMed Primal Google Scholar
Ostermann PA, Haase Due north, Rübberdt A, Wich Thousand, Ekkernkamp A: Management of a long segmental defect at the proximal meta-diaphyseal junction of the tibia using a cylindrical titanium mesh cage. J Orthop Trauma. 2002, sixteen (8): 597-601. 10.1097/00005131-200209000-00010.

PubMed Google Scholar
Urist MR, O'Connor BT, Burwell RG: Os Graft Derivatives and Substitutes. 1994, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

Google Scholar
Komatsu DE, Warden SJ: The control of fracture healing and its therapeutic targeting: improving upon nature. J Cell Biochem. 2010, 109 (2): 302-311.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Giannoudis PV, Einhorn TA, Marsh D: Fracture healing: the diamond concept. Injury. 2007, 38 (Suppl 4): S3-6.

Google Scholar
Dimitriou R, Tsiridis Eastward, Giannoudis PV: Current concepts of molecular aspects of bone healing. Injury. 2005, 36 (12): 1392-1404. 10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.019.

PubMed Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration: Medical devices. [http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/default.htm].
Blokhuis TJ: Formulations and delivery vehicles for os morphogenetic proteins: latest advances and future directions. Injury. 2009, 40 (Suppl three): S8-11.

PubMed Google Scholar
Nauth A, Giannoudis PV, Einhorn TA, Hankenson KD, Friedlaender GE, Li R, Schemitsch EH: Growth factors: beyond bone morphogenetic proteins. J Orthop Trauma. 2010, 24 (9): 543-546. 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181ec4833.

PubMed Google Scholar
Simpson AH, Mills 50, Noble B: The role of growth factors and related agents in accelerating fracture healing. J Bone Articulation Surg Br. 2006, 88 (vi): 701-705. 10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17524.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Alsousou J, Thompson Thou, Hulley P, Noble A, Willett M: The biology of platelet-rich plasma and its application in trauma and orthopaedic surgery: a review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009, 91 (8): 987-996. 10.1302/0301-620X.91B8.22546.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Argintar Due east, Edwards S, Delahay J: Os morphogenetic proteins in orthopaedic trauma surgery. Injury. 2010.

Google Scholar
Chen FM, Ma ZW, Dong GY, Wu ZF: Composite glycidyl methacrylated dextran (Dex-GMA)/gelatin nanoparticles for localized poly peptide commitment. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2009, 30 (4): 485-493. 10.1038/aps.2009.15.

CAS PubMed PubMed Key Google Scholar
Pountos I, Georgouli T, Kontakis One thousand, Giannoudis PV: Efficacy of minimally invasive techniques for enhancement of fracture healing: evidence today. Int Orthop. 2010, 34 (1): 3-12. ten.1007/s00264-009-0892-0.

PubMed Google Scholar
D'Ippolito G, Schiller PC, Ricordi C, Roos BA, Howard GA: Age-related osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stromal stem cells from human vertebral os marrow. J Bone Miner Res. 1999, fourteen (7): 1115-1122. 10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.7.1115.

PubMed Google Scholar
Huibregtse BA, Johnstone B, Goldberg VM, Caplan AI: Outcome of age and sampling site on the chondro-osteogenic potential of rabbit marrow-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells. J Orthop Res. 2000, 18 (1): 18-24. 10.1002/jor.1100180104.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Hernigou P, Poignard A, Beaujean F, Rouard H: Percutaneous autologous bone-marrow grafting for nonunions. Influence of the number and concentration of progenitor cells. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005, 87 (7): 1430-1437. 10.2106/JBJS.D.02215.

PubMed Google Scholar
Jäger M, Herten Thousand, Fochtmann U, Fischer J, Hernigou P, Zilkens C, Hendrich C, Krauspe R: Bridging the gap: bone marrow aspiration concentrate reduces autologous bone grafting in osseous defects. J Orthop Res. 2022, 29 (two): 173-180. 10.1002/jor.21230.

PubMed Google Scholar
Bianchi G, Banfi A, Mastrogiacomo Thou, Notaro R, Luzzatto L, Cancedda R, Quarto R: Ex vivo enrichment of mesenchymal cell progenitors by fibroblast growth factor 2. Exp Cell Res. 2003, 287 (1): 98-105. 10.1016/S0014-4827(03)00138-1.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
D'Ippolito G, Diabira S, Howard GA, Menei P, Roos BA, Schiller PC: Marrow-isolated adult multilineage inducible (MIAMI) cells, a unique population of postnatal young and old human being cells with extensive expansion and differentiation potential. J Cell Sci. 2004, 117 (14): 2971-2981. 10.1242/jcs.01103.

PubMed Google Scholar
Patterson TE, Kumagai Yard, Griffith L, Muschler GF: Cellular strategies for enhancement of fracture repair. J Bone Articulation Surg Am. 2008, 90 (Suppl one): 111-119.

PubMed Google Scholar
McGonagle D, English A, Jones EA: The relevance of mesenchymal stem cells in vivo for future orthopaedic strategies aimed at fracture repair. Curr Orthop. 2007, 21 (four): 262-267. 10.1016/j.cuor.2007.07.004.

Google Scholar
Wakitani S, Okabe T, Horibe S, Mitsuoka T, Saito M, Koyama T, Nawata M, Tensho Thou, Kato H, Uematsu M, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M, Yoshiya Southward, Hattori K, Ohgushi H: Condom of autologous os marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell transplantation for cartilage repair in 41 patients with 45 joints followed for upwardly to 11 years and v months. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2022, 5 (2): 146-150. 10.1002/term.299.

PubMed Google Scholar
Matsumoto T, Kawamoto A, Kuroda R, Ishikawa G, Mifune Y, Iwasaki H, Miwa M, Horii Grand, Hayashi South, Oyamada A, Nishimura H, Murasawa S, Doita Grand, Kurosaka M, Asahara T: Therapeutic potential of vasculogenesis and osteogenesis promoted past peripheral claret CD34-positive cells for functional bone healing. Am J Pathol. 2006, 169: 1440-1457. 10.2353/ajpath.2006.060064.

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zuk PA, Zhu G, Mizuno H, Huang J, Futrell JW, Katz AJ, Benhaim P, Lorenz HP, Hedrick MH: Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: implications for cell-based therapies. Tissue Eng. 2001, vii (2): 211-228. ten.1089/107632701300062859.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jackson WM, Aragon AB, Djouad F, Song Y, Koehler SM, Nesti LJ, Tuan RS: Mesenchymal progenitor cells derived from traumatized human musculus. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2009, 3 (2): 129-138. ten.1002/term.149.

CAS PubMed PubMed Cardinal Google Scholar
Im GI, Shin YW, Lee KB: Do adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells have the same osteogenic and chondrogenic potential as os marrow-derived cells?. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005, 13 (10): 845-853. 10.1016/j.joca.2005.05.005.

PubMed Google Scholar
Niemeyer P, Fechner K, Milz S, Richter W, Suedkamp NP, Mehlhorn AT, Pearce S, Kasten P: Comparison of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and adipose tissue for os regeneration in a disquisitional size defect of the sheep tibia and the influence of platelet-rich plasma. Biomaterials. 2010, 31 (13): 3572-3529. x.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.085.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jones E, McGonagle D: Man os marrow mesenchymal stem cells in vivo. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2008, 47 (2): 126-131.

CAS Google Scholar
Jones EA, Kinsey SE, English A, Jones RA, Straszynski 50, Meredith DM, Markham AF, Jack A, Emery P, McGonagle D: Isolation and characterization of bone marrow multipotential mesenchymal progenitor cells. Arthritis Rheum. 2002, 46 (12): 3349-3360. ten.1002/art.10696.

PubMed Google Scholar
Jones Eastward, English A, Churchman SM, Kouroupis D, Boxall SA, Kinsey S, Giannoudis PG, Emery P, McGonagle D: Large-scale extraction and characterization of CD271+ multipotential stromal cells from trabecular bone in wellness and osteoarthritis: implications for os regeneration strategies based on uncultured or minimally cultured multipotential stromal cells. Arthritis Rheum. 2010, 62 (7): 1944-1954.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Akkouch A, Zhang Z, Rouabhia Chiliad: A novel collagen/hydroxyapatite/poly(lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) biodegradable and bioactive 3D porous scaffold for bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2022, 96A: 693-704. 10.1002/jbm.a.33033.

CAS Google Scholar
Tampieri A, Landi E, Valentini F, Sandri Chiliad, D'Alessandro T, Dediu 5, Marcacci 1000: A conceptually new type of bio-hybrid scaffold for os regeneration. Nanotechnology. 2022, 22 (1): 015104-10.1088/0957-4484/22/1/015104.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Laschke MW, Witt K, Pohlemann T, Menger Dr.: Injectable nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite paste for bone substitution: in vivo analysis of biocompatibility and vascularization. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007, 82 (2): 494-505.

PubMed Google Scholar
Salgado AJ, Coutinho OP, Reis RL: Os tissue engineering: country of the art and futurity trends. Macromol Biosci. 2004, iv (8): 743-765. 10.1002/mabi.200400026.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Rose FR, Oreffo RO: Bone tissue technology: hope vs hype. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002, 292: 1-seven. 10.1006/bbrc.2002.6519.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jones EA, Yang XB: Mesenchymal stem cells and their future in bone repair. Int J Adv Rheumatol. 2005, 3 (three): fifteen-21.

Google Scholar
Chatterjea A, Meijer Yard, van Blitterswijk C, de Boer J: Clinical application of human mesenchymal stromal cells for bone tissue engineering. Stalk Cells Int. 2010, 2010: 215625.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kim SJ, Shin YW, Yang KH, Kim SB, Yoo MJ, Han SK, Im SA, Won YD, Sung YB, Jeon TS, Chang CH, Jang JD, Lee SB, Kim HC, Lee SY: A multi-centre, randomized, clinical report to compare the effect and safety of autologous cultured osteoblast (Ossron) injection to treat fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009, 10: 20-10.1186/1471-2474-x-20.

PubMed PubMed Key Google Scholar
Ohgushi H, Kotobuki N, Funaoka H, Machida H, Hirose G, Tanaka Y, Takakura Y: Tissue engineered ceramic artificial joint--ex vivo osteogenic differentiation of patient mesenchymal cells on total ankle joints for treatment of osteoarthritis. Biomaterials. 2005, 26 (22): 4654-4661. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.xi.055.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kokemueller H, Spalthoff South, Nolff M, Tavassol F, Essig H, Stuehmer C, Bormann KH, Rücker M, Gellrich NC: Prefabrication of vascularized bioartificial os grafts in vivo for segmental mandibular reconstruction: experimental pilot study in sheep and offset clinical awarding. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010, 39 (4): 379-387. 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.01.010.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Tarte K, Gaillard J, Lataillade JJ, Fouillard L, Becker M, Mossafa H, Tchirkov A, Rouard H, Henry C, Splingard M, Dulong J, Monnier D, Gourmelon P, Gorin NC, Sensebé L, Société Française de Greffe de Moelle et Thérapie Cellulaire: Clinical-grade product of human mesenchymal stromal cells: occurrence of aneuploidy without transformation. Claret. 2010, 115 (eight): 1549-1553. ten.1182/blood-2009-05-219907.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Weinand C, Xu JW, Peretti GM, Bonassar LJ, Gill TJ: Conditions affecting cell seeding onto 3-dimensional scaffolds for cellular-based biodegradable implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009, 91 (1): 80-87.

PubMed Google Scholar
Yoshioka T, Mishima H, Ohyabu Y, Sakai Southward, Akaogi H, Ishii T, Kojima H, Tanaka J, Ochiai North, Uemura T: Repair of large osteochondral defects with allogeneic cartilaginous aggregates formed from bone marrow-derived cells using RWV bioreactor. J Orthop Res. 2007, 25 (10): 1291-1298. 10.1002/jor.20426.

PubMed Google Scholar
Caplan AI: Mesenchymal stem cells and gene therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000, 379 (Suppl): S67-seventy.

PubMed Google Scholar
Chen Y: Orthopaedic application of gene therapy. J Orthop Sci. 2001, 6: 199-207. 10.1007/s007760100072.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Calori GM, Donati D, Di Bella C, Tagliabue L: Bone morphogenetic proteins and tissue applied science: future directions. Injury. 2009, twoscore (Suppl 3): S67-76.

PubMed Google Scholar
Tang Y, Tang Due west, Lin Y, Long J, Wang H, Liu L, Tian Westward: Combination of bone tissue applied science and BMP-two factor transfection promotes bone healing in osteoporotic rats. Jail cell Biol Int. 2008, 32 (ix): 1150-1157. 10.1016/j.cellbi.2008.06.005.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lacroix D, Prendergast PJ: A mechano-regulation model for tissue differentiation during fracture healing: analysis of gap size and loading. J Biomech. 2002, 35 (9): 1163-1171. x.1016/S0021-9290(02)00086-six.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Perren SM: Physical and biological aspects of fracture healing with special reference to internal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979, 138: 175-196.

PubMed Google Scholar
Jagodzinski M, Krettek C: Effect of mechanical stability on fracture healing--an update. Injury. 2007, 38 (Suppl1): S3-10.

PubMed Google Scholar
Epari DR, Schell H, Bail HJ, Duda GN: Instability prolongs the chondral stage during bone healing in sheep. Os. 2006, 38 (six): 864-870. 10.1016/j.bone.2005.10.023.

PubMed Google Scholar
Schell H, Epari DR, Kassi JP, Bragulla H, Bond HJ, Duda GN: The course of bone healing is influenced by the initial shear fixation stability. J Orthop Res. 2005, 23 (5): 1022-1028. ten.1016/j.orthres.2005.03.005.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Claes 50, Eckert-Hübner Grand, Augat P: The outcome of mechanical stability on local vascularization and tissue differentiation in callus healing. J Orthop Res. 2002, xx (5): 1099-1105. x.1016/S0736-0266(02)00044-X.

PubMed Google Scholar
Lienau J, Schell H, Duda GN, Seebeck P, Muchow S, Bail HJ: Initial vascularization and tissue differentiation are influenced by fixation stability. J Orthop Res. 2005, 23 (3): 639-645. 10.1016/j.orthres.2004.09.006.

PubMed Google Scholar
Babis GC, Soucacos PN: Bone scaffolds: The role of mechanical stability and instrumentation. Injury. 2005, 36 (Suppl): S38-S44.

PubMed Google Scholar
Tran GT, Pagkalos J, Tsiridis Due east, Narvani AA, Heliotis M, Mantalaris A, Tsiridis E: Growth hormone: does it have a therapeutic role in fracture healing?. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2009, 18 (seven): 887-911. ten.1517/13543780902893069.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Rubin MR, Bilezikian JP: Parathyroid hormone as an anabolic skeletal therapy. Drugs. 2005, 65 (17): 2481-2498. 10.2165/00003495-200565170-00005.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Tzioupis CC, Giannoudis PV: The safety and efficacy of parathyroid hormone (PTH) as a biological response modifier for the enhancement of os regeneration. Curr Drug Saf. 2006, ane (2): 189-203. 10.2174/157488606776930571.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Verhaar HJ, Lems WF: PTH analogues and osteoporotic fractures. Practiced Opin Biol Ther. 2010, 10 (9): 1387-1394. 10.1517/14712598.2010.506870.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kanis JA, Burlet Northward, Cooper C, Delmas PD, Reginster JY, Borgstrom F, Rizzoli R: European Order for Clinical and Economical Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO): European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2008, nineteen (4): 399-428. 10.1007/s00198-008-0560-z.

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Charopoulos I, Orme Due south, Giannoudis PV: The role and efficacy of denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis: an update. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2022.

Google Scholar
Chen Y, Alman BA: Wnt pathway, an essential function in os regeneration. J Cell Biochem. 2009, 106 (three): 353-362. 10.1002/jcb.22020.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Wagner ER, Zhu Thou, Zhang BQ, Luo Q, Shi Q, Huang E, Gao Y, Gao JL, Kim SH, Rastegar F, Yang Chiliad, He BC, Chen L, Zuo GW, Bi Y, Su Y, Luo J, Luo 10, Huang J, Deng ZL, Reid RR, Luu HH, Haydon RC, He TC: The therapeutic potential of the Wnt signaling pathway in bone disorders. Curr Mol Pharmacol. 2022, 4 (1): fourteen-25. 10.2174/1874467211104010014.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lucotte G, Houzet A, Hubans C, Lagarde JP, Lenoir G: Mutations of the noggin (NOG) and of the activin A type I receptor (ACVR1) genes in a series of 20-seven French fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) patients. Genet Couns. 2009, 20 (1): 53-62.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://world wide web.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/66/prepub

Download references

Author information

Writer notes

Affiliations

Section of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Academic Unit of measurement, Clarendon Wing, Leeds Education Hospitals NHS Trust, Corking George Street, Leeds, LS1 3EX, UK

Rozalia Dimitriou & Peter V Giannoudis
Britain Leeds NIHR Biomedical Enquiry Unit, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK

Rozalia Dimitriou & Peter V Giannoudis
Department of Musculoskeletal Affliction, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds and Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds, UK

Elena Jones & Dennis McGonagle

Respective writer

Correspondence to Peter V Giannoudis.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

RD contributed to the literature review and writing. EJ, DMcG and PVG contributed to the writing of specific sections of the manuscript within their main scientific interest, and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and have given final approval of the final manuscript.

Rozalia Dimitriou, Elena Jones, Dennis McGonagle and Peter Five Giannoudis contributed every bit to this work.

Authors' original submitted files for images

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Fundamental Ltd. This is an Open Admission article is distributed nether the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dimitriou, R., Jones, Eastward., McGonagle, D. et al. Bone regeneration: current concepts and futurity directions. BMC Med ix, 66 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-66

Download citation

Received: xv February 2022
Accepted: 31 May 2022
Published: 31 May 2022
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-ix-66

Keywords

Fracture Healing
Os Regeneration
Bone Repair
Distraction Osteogenesis
Demineralised Bone Matrix