Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Apr 26.
Published in final edited form as: RSC Adv. 2021 May 17;11(29):17809–17827. doi: 10.1039/d1ra02557k

Table 2.

Biomaterial modification strategies to address the challenges of CMF defect repair

Challenge Ideal properties Methods to address Ref.
Mechanics
Surgical handling Easy for surgeons to add to defect
  • 3D-printing exact defect shape

  • Shapeable by surgeon (i.e. putty)

  • Trimmable material (i.e. sheet)

61, 90, 9395
Stiffness Should not be stiffer than bone to avoid stress-shielding and not too soft to avoid material collapse
  • Avoid stiff metal materials

  • Create composite structures to increase stiffness of soft materials

  • Cross-linking to add stiffness

78 and 91
Micromotion Limit to 28–150 μm of motion or else fibrosis will occur
  • Design implant with shape-fitting properties

61, 79 and 93
Bacterial infection
Infection Killing bacteria or preventing bacterial adhesion to implant surface without antibiotics
  • Nano-scale surface topography kills bacteria (i.e. pillars or unique patterns)

  • Compositional changes can kill bacteria or prevent attachment:

  • Antimicrobial peptides and enzymes

  • Hydrophobic coatings

  • Metal nanoparticles

  • Natural materials (i.e. honey, chitosan)

101104, 113 and 115
Immune response
Macrophage phenotype M1 to M2 transition over weeks
  • Porous material facilitates healing, >30 μm pore size to promote M2

  • Patterned surfaces or anisotropic pores promote macrophage elongation and M2 phenotype

121 and 123
Foreign body response (FBR) Avoid material causing FBR
  • Degradation byproducts should not be cytotoxic or in high quantities

  • Particles sizes <2 μm can cause FBR and bone resorption

  • Avoid thick, hard to degrade materials

  • Avoid designing materials with points or sharp edges

124128
Balancing multiple cell types
Mesenchymal stem cells, osteoblasts, and osteocytes Osteogenesis and differentiation to the bone lineage
  • Metal particles such as zinc and magnesium can induce osteogenesis

  • Pore sizes > 50 μm can induce osteogenesis

  • Aligned fibers and pores promote bone formation over random orientations

  • Increasing stiffness increases osteogenesis

  • Mineral (Ca, P) promotes MSC differentiation and osteogenesis

  • Glycosaminoglycans (i.e. Chondroitin-6-sulfate, heparin sulfate) induce osteogenesis

75, 134, 138, 145 and 150
Osteoclasts Limit early resorptive activity of implant
  • Calcium enhances OPG production to block osteoclastogenesis

133 and 136
Pericytes and endothelial cells Promote angiogenesis and fully formed and functional vasculature
  • Stiffer materials encourage angiogenesis and endothelial cell spreading

  • Aligned or channel-like pores can guide vessel formation

  • Larger pores are better at promoting angiogenesis

146, 148 and 149
Regenerative healing
Host bone regeneration New bone should form throughout the material without voids
  • Micro-scale porosity enhances bone formation throughout implants

  • Metals do not allow for new bone formation

157 and 158
Material degradation Material degradation should match host bone regeneration
  • Thinner materials allow for quicker degradation

  • Ideally a material should degrade within 3–6 months for CMF defect repair

  • Polymer chemistry can be modified to hasten degradation by pH changes, temperature, and hydrolysis

  • Mechanical stimuli can help to balance degradation and regeneration

6,155 and 156