Bone Tissue Engineering: A Literature Review

Saeed Reza Motamedian, Parastoo Iranparvar, Golnaz Nahvi, Arash Khojasteh



Introduction: Classic bone tissue engineering involves use of osteogenic cells, growth factors, and bone scaffolds to generate a graft material to replace the gold standard which is autogenous bone graft. Several modifications have been applied to the classic approach but none of them can fully regenerate bone defects. The current study reviewes the literatures in applications of bone tissue engineering both in vivo and in vitro. Materials and Methods: An electronic search in MEDLINE was conducted and both in vivo and in vitro studies were included using bone scaffolds with or without osteogenic growth factors or stem cells. In vitro studies which did not investigate cell-scaffold interactions and in vivo studies which did not measure new bone formation were excluded. Results: Of 86 studies, 38 concerned in vitro and 48 in vivo studies. These studies were divided into six groups based on scaffold which they used: Synthetic, natural, polymers (non-ceramics), composites (polymer+ceramic), metal-based and nano-scaffolds. The results of the studies were compared in a qualitative manner. In vitro studies were mostly conducted on polymers, while relatively more animal and clinical studies were performed on ceramics. The most commonly used scaffolds, stem cells and growth factor were synthetic ceramics, bone marrow stem cells and bone morphgenic protein 2, respectively. Conclusion: Determination of the most successful approach was not possible due to the presence of several variable and variances in analyzing methods and data report. However, studies which used all three components of BTE, including scaffolds, growth factors and stem cells, showed good results both in vitro and in vivo.


Tissue engineering; Bone; Stem cell; Growth factor; Scaffold

Full Text:




Frapier L, Garcia C, Pic E, Morant F, Belguendouz S, Gauthier A, et al. Successful orthodontic-surgical treatment: aiming for esthetics and function. Analysis of some clinical cases. Int Orthod. 2013;11(4):357-88.

Johnston C, Burden D, Kennedy D, Harradine N, Stevenson M. Class III surgical-orthodontic treatment: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(3):300-9.

Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Lux CJ, Schuster G. Treatment decision in adult patients with Class III malocclusion: orthodontic therapy or orthognathic surgery? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122(1):27-37; discussion -8.

Kim DK, Baek SH. Change in maxillary incisor inclination during surgical-orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion: comparison of extraction and nonextraction of the maxillary first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(3):324-35.

Xu B, Qin K. [The effect of extraction and non-extraction decompensation to bimaxillary orthognathic surgery in skeletal class III malocclusion]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2012;30(2):143-7.

Yu CC, Chen PH, Liou EJ, Huang CS, Chen YR. A Surgery-first approach in surgical-orthodontic treatment of mandibular prognathism--a case report. Chang Gung Med J. 2010;33(6):699-705.

Proffit WR, Raymond P. White, and David M. Sarver. Contemporary treatment of dentofacial deformity. St Louis: Mo: Mosby; 2003.

Troy BA, Shanker S, Fields HW, Vig K, Johnston W. Comparison of incisor inclination in patients with Class III malocclusion treated with orthognathic surgery or orthodontic camouflage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(2):146.e1-9; discussion -7.

Aymach Z, Sugawara J, Goto S, Nagasaka H, Nanda R. Nonextraction "surgery first" treatment of a skeletal Class III patient with severe maxillary crowding. J Clin Orthod. 2013;47(5):297-304; quiz 27-8.

Gonzalez B. Non-extraction treatment of a Class III skeletal case. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2009;20(2):15-21.

Kerr WJ, Miller S, Dawber JE. Class III malocclusion: surgery or orthodontics? Br J Orthod. 1992;19(1):21-4.

Battagel JM. The aetiological factors in Class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15(5):347-70.

Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). J Orthod. 2000;27(2):149-62.

Joh B, Bayome M, Park JH, Park JU, Kim Y, Kook YA. Evaluation of minimal versus conventional presurgical orthodontics in skeletal class III patients treated with two-jaw surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(10):1733-41.

Aydil B, Ozer N, Marsan G. Bimaxillary surgery in Class III malocclusion: soft and hard tissue changes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013;41(3):254-7.

Rustemeyer J, Martin A. Soft tissue response in orthognathic surgery patients treated by bimaxillary osteotomy: cephalometry compared with 2-D photogrammetry. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;17(1):33-41.

Marsan G, Cura N, Emekli U. Soft and hard tissue changes after bimaxillary surgery in Turkish female Class III patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2009;37(1):8-17.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN:2476-5163 (Print); 2476-5171 (Online)

Creative Commons LicenseThe Journal of "Regeneration, Reconstruction, & Restoration" is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.